Ship of Fools: MW: Choirs of Men and Boys

Thread: MW: Choirs of Men and Boys Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001052

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Yes, a few of us remain engaged in this rich and significant tradition of church music. Here in the States, between 25 and 30 such ensembles survive. My group consists of five basses, three tenors, three countertenors, and ten trebles from an Episcopalian Parish of roughly 225 families. It's a labor of love -- recruitment is a constant activity -- but when the lads are at their best it's a glorious sight and sound to behold, chorally speaking. We're scheduled to travel to and sing in New York City in mid-June of this year.

Any other Shipmates historically or presently involved/affiliated/with supporters/of M&B groups in your area, or have M&B anecdotes to share?

[ 31. March 2004, 18:40: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :

Hostly Canterbury Cap flourish
I am sure MW will be a fertile pasture for this thread so I'm sending you there.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think there is a place for Men and Boy only choirs, but also Girls and mixed choirs (or else how could I sing?)
But a wonderful experience at the weekend was hearing the combined choirs of Exeter (B&M) and Gloucester (B&M) singing in Exeter Cathedral - see wiblog - you just can't beat it!

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

Men and boys choirs are principally of interest to the sort of middle-aged men who live with their mothers and collect unusual art literature. There is no musical justification for them as adult sopranos make a much better sound than boy trebles, read music better and don't pick their noses or fart during services. All the Cathedral choirs have been vastly outclassed by the undergraduate choirs of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges these days, and it is these, consequently, who get to make most recordings. Most Cathedrals Chapters could save themselves money and improve the quality of their musical output by employing soprano lay clerks (or clerkesses) instead of paying out huge scholarships to boy choristers.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Do you think you would get men singing if they had not first sung as boys? Most if not all the men in my church choir first sang as trebles.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Thank you, Fiddleback. At the risk of sounding Hellish, my guess is that you are still smarting from many, many failed auditions as a young boy and are yet to overcome having been denied an opportunity to sing as a treble in a cathedral-style choir of M&B. That said, I'll now re-read your post and respond a little more kindly.

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :

I'm with Chorister (and I'll try to ignore Fiddleback's close to hellish comments). Boy's choirs do have a distinctive sound, one which I have long preferred to other choirs. But that's my ears. As Chorister points out, it's good to have a variety of choirs.

My favorite rendition of Handel's Messiah is by the King's Choir, btw.

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Men and boys choirs are principally of interest to the sort of middle-aged men who live with their mothers and collect unusual art literature.

I do NOT live with my mother!

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Chorister:

You'll be glad to know that my Parish also supports a Children's Choir (20-22 girls and boys), Women's Choir (18 members, and arguably the best of our ensembles), a Parish Choir (16 mixed adults), and Senior Choir (a retiree-voiced group). As there is a plethora of them, I will be starting a Jr. High School Girls' Ensemble this Autumn.

I'd also say you're right on the money re: boys who sing becoming men who sing. That argument, IMO, is extremely strong.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do you think you would get men singing if they had not first sung as boys? Most if not all the men in my church choir first sang as trebles.

That is a great big myth invented by the raincoat brigade to maintain the object of their fantasies. In the last Cathedral choir I was involved with, ony two of the men had been boy choristers. And where do the very competent adult females in so many choirs come from. Have they all had gender re-assignments since theor childhood?

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Here you go Fiddleback, one point at a time:

quote:
Men and boys choirs are principally of interest to the sort of middle-aged men who live with their mothers and collect unusual art literature.

Beyond the myopia and tone of this broad and unfortunate generalization, I'll simply tell you that I'm in my early 30's and live 300 miles from my parents. At present I do not collect. Beyond work and church I'm too busy with my toddler daughter.

quote:
There is no musical justification for them as adult sopranos make a much better sound than boy trebles,

Well-versed are you in the topic of vocal timbres? "Better" is the lip of a slippery slope. I take it you prefer the sound of adult women. Alrighty then.

quote:
read music better

Well, RSCM-affiliated choirs (over here) usually follow the Voice For Life series of training materials and teach boys to be musically literate. I can confidently stack my lead boy up against any other female soprano in my parish and he will hold his own.

quote:
and don't pick their noses or fart during services.

You're right -- women have never done these. Honestly FB, what kind of program are you familiar with? Boys are boys now, aren't they? Those are more rehearsal issues that service concerns.

quote:
All the Cathedral choirs have been vastly outclassed by the undergraduate choirs of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges these days, and it is these, consequently, who get to make most recordings.

They don't , BTW, feature adult sopranos who try to sound like boy trebles, do they? I see, recording opportunities = success. Have you no musical criteria?

quote:
Most Cathedrals Chapters could save themselves money and improve the quality of their musical output by employing soprano lay clerks (or clerkesses) instead of paying out huge scholarships to boy choristers.

You may be right re: $$, but then you'd completely destroy a virtually ancient Anglican tradition as well as deny a wonderful opportunity and exceptional education to many boys and their families. Not to mention the ministerial aspects worth considering.

Your pet peeve is my lap dog. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
<<snip>>
Your pet peeve is my lap dog. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

I wasn't thinking you were the one who needed to apologize. You didn't insult a large number of people with crass generalizations which are unproven and which seemed like they were intended to offend.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

One could say that an advantage of boy trebles is that puberty puts them out to pasture, unlike some sopranos who don't know when to quit. Not that I really have an opinion one way or the other, as long as the tenor line is good.

Seriously, I love the men and boys choir at Christ Church Cathedral, Lexington, KY. I've never seen them pick their noses in public. Maybe I wasn't paying close attention.

("The Riv", although I can't claim to be a mind-reader, it's just remotely possible that Fiddleback is jerking your chain.)

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Well sharkshooter, an apology can't hurt. The thread is obviously a point of contention for some. I can only say that I appreciate the tradition of M&B choirs and am glad to direct one. I still hope to be regaled with other shipmates' experiences. C'mon UK!

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
("The Riv", although I can't claim to be a mind-reader, it's just remotely possible that Fiddleback is jerking your chain.)

That's entirely possible, Sine, and, in fact, my hope. [Smile]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

The good father has been rather frisky since his recent facelift.

Posted by Septimus (# 500) on :

I must say, it's rather refreshing to return from a lengthy sojurn ashore to find that some of the familiar old ruddy faces are still here and still inciting the right level of emotion from unwary deckwalkers.

I know what you mean Rev. Back. My mother always helps me adjust my anorak before I toddle off to choir. As the only man (or boy) to show up on a regular basis it behoves me to put on a show for the sopranos.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Good grief. [Disappointed]

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Geneva Gown ON
Making rather overt statements about the moral character of those interested in Men/Boy choruses is definitely NOT acceptable in MW. And those doing so definitely know better. This thread definitely deserves better than that.
If this behavior cointinues here, or any similar juvenile behavior spreads to other threads in MW, it will be jumped on VERY quickly and VERY hard.
Geneva Gown OFF

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :

Thank you, Siegfried.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

What a curious thread. We have a mesospherically high Anglo-Catholic priest from England attacking boy choirs and a fundamentalist Protestant from Texas defending them.

Greta

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

One of the big problems with mixed adult choirs is that there are not enough well-trained females. This is especially so in the roman tradition where the soprano line can verge on the operatic (which was admired in previous days). The alto line often consisted of rejects from the sopranos (in an age where "can't sing" was equivalent to"no vibrato and can't manage above F#).

Here in Oz the men and boys' choirs are not in the league of the British ones mainly because the kids are not packed off to boarding-school at 7, nor are they routinely turfed out at puberty. I would say that the best choirs I have ever heard here in Oz are mixed and all bar one are Anglican i.e. Christ Church St Laurence and St James King St here in Sydney, St Peter's Eastern Hill, Trinity College and Ormond College (Uniting Church ) in Melbourne. Mind you, these are all rigorously auditioned, and the singers are generally young (i.e. under 30).

The Paddington Cacophonic Society (aka the choir of St Francis of Assisi)is pretty good as parish choirs go (a lot of non-auditioned starters but we have picked up more and more really able singers as time has gone on. Mind you, a robed Roman parish choir is often compared to a dog walking on its hind legs-the marvel is that it is done at all!

cheers all,

m

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:

Here in Oz the men and boys' choirs are not in the league of the British ones mainly because the kids are not packed off to boarding-school at 7, nor are they routinely turfed out at puberty.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing. [Confused]

quote:

Mind you, a robed Roman parish choir is often compared to a dog walking on its hind legs-the marvel is that it is done at all!

Isn't that - neither is done well, but one is surprised to find either done at all.

I seem to recall those are originally the words of Dr Samuel Johnson.

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

referring, I believe, to the spectre of a woman preaching, non?

Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

D'accord.

I hail from the same county as the good doctor.
Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness.....pass them by!

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

Righty ho, Mr The Riv. The ONLY reason for the ancient and venerable tradition which you seek to uphold is that for so many years women were not allowed to sully the chancels of our churches with their presence. Having small boys sing the top line was the next best thing. It is rather like the old Public School productions of Gilbert & Sullivan where smaller boys were dressed and made up to take the women's parts. I am not opposed to children being in choirs - and in fact it is something I am very much trying to encourage here - but I am opposed to maintaining an ignominious tradition which is basically misogynistic.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I had a larf at Fiddleback's early post, but I don't agree with all of it by any means.

Cathedrals which are serious in proving how un-misogynistic they are can set up girl's choirs or provide a mixed choir alongside the all-male set-up, which share in the task of providing music for worship. And they can also ensure that musically talented females have the same rebate/scholarship ops as the fellas.

Though, as an example that it can be done with girls, imo Lincoln has an excellent choir of girls - do they sometimes sing with the boys? - with a beautiful top-line sound, every bit as good as most all-male cathedral treble groups. I don't know how widespread this is.

I've heard one or two parish or cathedral mixed choirs (women and men) which have also sounded extremely good; no hint of the Victorian oratorio style. More a chamber choir effect, with a small number of well-trained, not over the top voices. Perhaps just as difficult to recruit for as a typical cathedral choir?

However, I like the sound of a good M&B choir. It does have a distinctive sound which it would be a shame to lose from the spectrum of choral colour. Just as it would be a shame to lose men's choirs and women's choirs, and mixed-sex choirs.

I think the up-the-road parish choir is treading dodgy ground if it discriminates against women, because it can't easily plead the special case of Cathedral tradition, in my opinion. And the parish choir is a good place for both boys and girls to begin their early singing worship 'careers', perhaps prior to cathedral school.

So long as the boys don't 'hoot', and the lay clerks manage to get out of the pub on time for divine service, this is one tradition that is worth keeping. I want my cake and eat it. Now that's perfectly reasonable, isn't it? [Big Grin]

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Righty ho, Mr The Riv. The ONLY reason for the ancient and venerable tradition which you seek to uphold is that for so many years women were not allowed to sully the chancels of our churches with their presence. Having small boys sing the top line was the next best thing. It is rather like the old Public School productions of Gilbert & Sullivan where smaller boys were dressed and made up to take the women's parts. I am not opposed to children being in choirs - and in fact it is something I am very much trying to encourage here - but I am opposed to maintaining an ignominious tradition which is basically misogynistic.

This is pretty much right. In my view, both girls and boys should be encouraged to sing good church music and to develop into adult church musicians. The boys should I think continue to have the opportunity to sing in men and boy choirs or in mixed choirs. There should also be more ensembles for girls - girls only or mixed.

One of the best mixed ensembles around in Sydney is the Jacobeans (the former choir of St James, King Street, after a bust-up some years back with a cloth eared vicar). They have an impressive treble line-up of boys and girls, together with adult sopranos. Perfectly straight and sweet-toned with nary a wobble. On the other hand the main choir at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney is men and boys.

The problem with Catholic choirs here, as it is elsewhere in the world is the damage that was done in the 1970's and 80's by misinterpretation of the relevant bits of Vatican II. A lot of rankly bad music was written then in the name of the vernacular and of congregational participation.

Congregational participation does not mean cutting out all the plainchant and Palestrina. There is no reason why the congregation can't join in the plainchant for example(simple or more complex dependening on ability), as they do with the hymns. As for the rest, it is part of the great inheritance of the church and should be much more widely heard and performed.

Incidentally when we did G&S at school, it was the few girl altos who wound up singing the male parts.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Degs, I have a huge problem with the English vice of packing the kiddies off to boarding-school at a young age and keeping the dogs at home...I didn't realise what a custom it was until my own parents were posted to Ghana 30-odd years back and the 3 of us went to boarding-school at ages 14, 12 and 10. On our (annual) re-union with the parents at Christmas (the long holidays in the Antipodes) we met any number of young Brits who had been boarding since age 7, poor little blighters. I suspect that the custom of boarding boy choristers dates from mediaeval times when prospective monks were picked up at an early age and every monastic foundation had its Master of the children.

As for the girls' choirs in the UK, yes, they are often excellent but it is my impression that they are very much the poor relations in that they get to sing with the men (and on their own) on the boys' days off, but never with them. After all, they aren't going to grow up into gorgeous lay-clerks, are they?

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Slightly outside England, but the Dublin Cathedral choir school has girls only. I was quite stunned to discover this, then I found out that the Director of Music is an old friend who lived through women being badly treated in the cathedral choir we both belonged to.

For myself I far prefer the European boys choir sound to the English.

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
What a curious thread. We have a mesospherically high Anglo-Catholic priest from England attacking boy choirs and a fundamentalist Protestant from Texas defending them.

That is a bit unusual, isn't it.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Well, I'm flummoxed, which will bring a smile to Septimus' face. [Confused]

This thread was/is an attempt at sharing an extremely small, even odd facet of Christian Church Music. Like some, even few, I really enjoy the unique sound that M&B choirs offer and am glad to see them scratching out an existance as a completely counter-cultural phenomenon. I'd appreciate it if those who share this view would continue to add their experiences and stories to mine. That's the request. Here's to hoping.

Since it came up, I addressed the issue of inclusion/fairness to females in as much that I elaborated on the other ensembles my Parish supports. I'm all for girl choristers, but reject the premise that simply because a M&B choir exists discrimination must also. Female choristers -- girls, to the point of fact, occupy choir stalls at every (church/choral) level, and have been particularly well-received in many of England's/Europe's most notable cathedrals, not the least of which is Notre Dame. Pun intended.

Fiddleback: you seem to have the better part of your bow well beyond your anal sphyncter re: this issue. FYI, Neil (starbelly) is taking soon-to-be-revived Rant of the Month topics @ the Styx. Why not apply your jaded spittle to that task? If you want to hash out the merits and/or faults of the M&B tradition in Purgatory, great; see you there. Or, just give over to yourself and go whine in Hell. But if you're going to curse any aspect of Christian worship experience that had (particularly by today's standards) a questionable origin, you ain't gonna be left with much.

Duo, I'm confused. You quoted a large part of Fiddleback's post decrying M&B choirs, but then contradicted it immediately after saying he was pretty much right.

Thanks so far to Chorister, MarkThePunk, Sine Nomine, and Anselmina for ringing in re: M&B choirs.

Multipara, you did read the OP? Sounds like your having a worthy but mostly another conversation. [Wink]

I love the M&B tradition: the choirs themselves and their specific heritage and sound. I am not a misogynist, and none of the men I know who share my responsibilities are either. Again, I apologize if the OP touched a nerve, but at this point and considering the veteran status enjoyed by all who've posted on this thread, I neither appreciate nor feel the need to tolerate disparaging remarks that have or may yet come.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
For myself I far prefer the European boys choir sound to the English.

Care to describe what you're talking about?

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

The German and Norwegian children's and boys choirs have a much richer and fruitier sound than English choirs generally do. Not so "pure."

Which isn't to say I don't like the English sound - I just prefer the other. I went to Holy Communion at King's College when I was staying in Cambridge a couple of years ago and loved what I heard.

But the early Leonhardt recordings of the Bach cantatas had boy soloists who just blew me away they were so beautiful.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Arabella, if you are doing another UK choir crawl, go check out the men and boys of Westminster Cathedral. I last heard them in 1999, just before James O'Donnell went to the Abbey as director, and the sound was wonderful-and very un-English. I am told that the "Continental" tradition was established there by the first director, Richard Terry, and has continued on. They also sing a lot of the Spanish repertoire which was brilliant to hear.

cheers,

m

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

I began my life as an Anglican singing Merbecke and Oxford Easy Anthems and whatever John Rutter did recently, in a boys' choir. When my globes inevitably decreased their altitude, I continued as a squeaky tenor, which I still do today, though not in the original choir.

Just for the record, that boys choir is the single worst choir on the face of God's green earth. if you're ever in Sydney, go to St Paul's Bankstown as penance!

I must say, though, even though I am a non-mysogynistic forward thinking liturgical experimenter, I am a bit partial to a M&B choir like King's college Cambridge. We in Sydney may very soon lose one of our better ones if the Puritanical Dean gets his way....

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think we are lucky these days that there is so much opportunity and variety in the types of choirs available. Even in so-called 'crossover' music the choral tradition is acceptable (eg. angel voices - the St. Philip's Boys Choir). But there is still a problem in all but the most famous and professional choirs - that of finding enough men to sing. This is apparent not only in church music but in choral societies all over the country. Schools and churches must somehow get boys to see that singing can be fun; men who never enjoyed singing as children are unlikely to suddenly motivate themselves to learn tenor or bass - although I wish they would!
Whether the best way to encourage this is through the traditional route of Men and Boys' choirs or through mixed choirs is open to debate. (Mixed choirs are a great way of meeting the opposite sex - I know, I married one of them!)

There is a huge comprehensive school near me, with a couple of thousand teenagers. Their choir has almost all girls - about 3 boys sing. What a waste of voices! Perhaps it is more acceptable to sing if you are a boy at public (independent) school, but it would be a shame if it is a class thing.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:

Duo, I'm confused. You quoted a large part of Fiddleback's post decrying M&B choirs, but then contradicted it immediately after saying he was pretty much right.

Not sure I can see where you're coming from, Riv. Fiddleback made the entirely correct point that M&B choirs come from the bad old days, when women and girls were not countenanced on the sanctuary or allowed to have anything else to do with the Liturgy, including acting as altar servers, Eucharistic ministers or lectors. Those were the bad old misogynistic days. (Inroads have been made - although we don't have either women priests or deacons in the Catholic Church.) I agreed with Fiddleback's point on the origin of M&B choirs - maybe I could have been clearer.

My main point was that one can continue the M&B tradition while giving equal time and space to mixed choirs or girls/women ensembles. I'm for equal access. Frankly, the state of music in most Catholic parishes is in such a state of disuetude that all groups should be encouraged. Outside of a Cathdral, this is most likely to mean a mixed choir or an all female choir. Even within the Cathedral tradition they should be given a fair and equal go.

The trouble with championing the tradition of M&B choirs on the basis of their sound is that it can encourage the sort of thought process that, consciously or not, regards mixed choirs or all female choirs as a lesser order of being, because they have a different sound. There is a certain Cathedral down the road from us where the mixed choir and mixed Gregorian schola have very much played second fiddle to the M&B choir in terms of singing in the "big" liturgies.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There is an argument that the sound is created by the Choral Director, rather than being a particularly 'boy' thing. This is borne out by what APW says about the European boys sounding different. You could never confuse the Vienna Boys' Choir with Kings', for example. The Catholic boys' schools eg. Downham also have a very different sound.
Malcolm Archer (Wells) would argue that he can make girls sound the same as boys. He gave a talk which I attended and to illustrate it he played a recording of the girls of Wells Cathedral singing and then the boys singing. He challenged us to tell which was which. I got it right, but several people in the room didn't - many of whom were of the 'boys are best' brigade. I think it gave us all food for thought.

The choir I hear most often is Exeter. And you can definitely tell the difference in sound between B and G there. Mind you, they are trained by two different people.

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
The German and Norwegian children's and boys choirs have a much richer and fruitier sound than English choirs generally do. Not so "pure."

It's that purity (and I won't put it in quotation marks) which I prefer about boys voices. (No, I'm not a fan of girls voices, and it's nothing to do with mysoginy.)

The continental sound does nothing for me at all. I don't like my religion syrupy(which is how I'd define 'fruity'), and that's what I hear in a continental boys choir.

To be honest I also prefer English Church music to go with it, and a more 'english' sound on a church organ. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's my 'ear'.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

It seems to very much depend on where you are. I heard Evensong on BBC3 from Worcester Cathedral a few weeks ago, and they had sung the introit before the officiant said which choir it was, and I was amazed that it was the girls', since it sounded very like the boys' (or to be specific, it sounded like A boys' choir, since I don't know what THE boys' choir at Worcester sounds like.).

The problem seems two-fold: directors of girls' choirs (in my experience) are very keen on them being good singers, but are equally keen on them sounding like boys, i.e. a very pure and 'white' sound (not racially white, but undiluted white).

And, most of these directors have little experience with how a girl's voice actually works, being different from a boy's voice. Many cathedral girls' choirs kick the girls out at 14 - why? Because if they were boys that's when their voices would break.

But in fact, a girl's voice changes (and it does, even if it's less noticeable in some girls) at puberty, which tends to be around 11 or 12.

St David's Cathedral has only had a girls' top line since the late 70's (when the boys choir was struck down by flu the day before a BBC evensong!) and the girls stay till they're 18. They have just started a boys' choir too - mostly younger brothers!

The other thing to consider is that for the most part, boys don't want to sing with girls. At that age, they prefer a male-only environment. Having girls around can confirm a sneaking suspicion that like knitting and playing with barbies, singing is for girls. (said with a sneer, as only an 11-year old can!)

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

Riv, going back and re-reading your OP more carefully, I see you have three counter-tenors. How neat. I think we all got sidetracked by the boys (don't say it, Degs!). Sounds like a sort of a mini version of Chanticleer (not that they have trebles.).

It's amazing, and I'm envious, that you can support five choirs out of 225 families. Is there anybody left in the congregation? What makes your parish so musical?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I'm with Degs on this one re: purity over fruity every time. I know it's only a personal thing, but hearing the occasional European boys' choir on TV reminds me of the 'hooting' I was complaining about. More like an owls' convention, than angelic be-ruffled pre-teens! [Big Grin]

Elgar, Finzi, Vaughan-Williams, and Britten can only be effectively sung by that particular brand of English sound, imo. A sound that can be replicated by non-English people, of course. How generous of me to say so - I know [Wink]

Besides isn't 'fruity' what buxom mezzo-contraltos do eg in the style of, 'He was despised...' Handel?

The fruitiest I am prepared to go is the young Aled Jones.

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I think we all got sidetracked by the boys (don't say it, Degs!).

In my experience it's usually the tenors who flirt! [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Elgar, Finzi, Vaughan-Williams, and Britten can only be effectively sung by that particular brand of English sound, imo. A sound that can be replicated by non-English people, of course. How generous of me to say so - I know

Byrd, Tallis, Rutter...... [Yipee]

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

Forgive double post, but plainsong is something else much better with male voices, I think.

Have a listen to the link above!!!

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
They don't , BTW, feature adult sopranos who try to sound like boy trebles

Oh yeah? What of those of us who by default have pure voices? What? Just because we're girls we are de facto expected to have huge operatic vibratos, and therefore be faking a "boy-like" sound?

What a load of old tosh. I couldn't produce a wobble if I tried. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
One of the best mixed ensembles around in Sydney is the Jacobeans (the former choir of St James, King Street, after a bust-up some years back with a cloth eared vicar). They have an impressive treble line-up of boys and girls, together with adult sopranos. Perfectly straight and sweet-toned with nary a wobble.

My dear Duo, I beg to differ. They sang at my parish last Sunday (I was subdeacon) - Byrd 4 part. It was perfectly appalling. Especially considering my choir (our parish choir) sang it the previous week. The entries were uneven and weak, the tone was all over the place, the pace was far too slow. They may have been good once, but several people have commented that their quality has declined. Yes they still draw the boys and some girls, but there's alot of dead wood there...

The Jacobeans' decline may have something to do with the fact that Walter Sutcliffe doesn't appear to be very well; when they sing at St M's he usually plays, but he was extremely reluctant to climb the stairs on Sunday morning. He looked very pale and pasty.

___

The concept of misogyny in relation to girls and cathedral choirs, I think, holds true. Not least in that it means girls do not receive the same quality of musical training, the same standard, the same opportunities. May the girls choirs in cathedrals flourish! Music in general will be the richer for it.

quote:
This thread was/is an attempt at sharing an extremely small, even odd facet of Christian Church Music.

Yes well. By all means share your enthusiasm, but be ready for sounds of disagreement.

As for this statement:

quote:

quote:

All the Cathedral choirs have been vastly outclassed by the undergraduate choirs of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges these days, and it is these, consequently, who get to make most recordings.
They don't , BTW, feature adult sopranos who try to sound like boy trebles, do they? I see, recording opportunities = success. Have you no musical criteria?

I find this highly objectionable. What a complete write-off of adult sopranos. "Oh, they only manage to do it because of the recording opportunities." What a load of tosh. Give us a bit of credit will you? Women study music too, you know (hello! yes, this is the 21st Century and yes, women can be more talented than men in different areas). Why shouldn't they also be given the opportunities men/boys are given?

Why are there no tertiary/postgrad scholarships available for women to sing in cathedral/college choirs? Why must it be only the men who have this opportunity?

Having said this, I take more issue with your expression, Riv, than with your statement of ardour for M&B choirs. Seeing as I happen to like the sound myself.

However, I would far rather listen to The Sixteen, or the Tallis Scholars, than to a crappily led, crappily trained, bad sounding, off-key M&B choir.

I think Chorister has a point. It very much depends on the director/choir trainer, both as to the sound of the group, and as to how they interact musically and socially.

Jugular is right in that the Choir at St Andrews is definitely under threat (whether now, or in 5-10 years time). However, it is a bit of an old nag; Michael Deasey (for whom I have a great deal of respect) appears to have lost spirit and given up the fight somewhat under the conditions, and he lacks energy in pulling the group together. The boys have consistently sounded ratty for the past 3 years. Whether that's because of difficulties of recruitment/losing a whole lot at one time/whatever, or not, I am not sure. But it is not a sound I would travel to hear...

And, I think there are a lot of choirs that have more spirit than Kings College Cambridge, for all their being exulted above all other choirs in the world. KCC seems to be a bit tired, at least from recent recordings I have - they may be very different live...

[Wink]

Just sharing my opinions here... Anyone else want their choir criticised? [Big Grin]

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Forgive double post, but plainsong is something else much better with male voices, I think.

Have a listen to the link above!!!

Degs, WOMEN religious have also been singing chant since at least, oh, the 13th Century... Witness Hildegarde of Bingen.

I dare say it very much depends on how the director interprets the chant, and how well trained the choir is in singing it.

My opinion is that chant sounds best when chanted either by men or women; the homogenity of sound is what matters...

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

LOL A triple post. No I am *not* half worked up about this topic!

And having said all the stuff I have said above:

*whispers* I confess to having a secret fetish for recordings of Kings done in the 1960s, wobbles and all... Not so much because of the sound they made, as from the historical point of view, and I probably enjoy it because of associations I have with it.../*whispers*

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
My opinion is that chant sounds best when chanted either by men or women; the homogenity of sound is what matters...

I'm with you on that. Not something for mixed voices. My preference is for male voices.

quote:

*whispers* I confess to having a secret fetish for recordings of Kings done in the 1960s, wobbles and all... Not so much because of the sound they made, as from the historical point of view, and I probably enjoy it because of associations I have with it.../*whispers*

I think they were at their best in David Willcocks day!

Posted by Panis Angelicus (# 3795) on :

J.E. Millard wrote a now-obscure but mildly interesting defense of what he called the "office" of boy-choristers in 1847:

Historical Notices of the Office of Choristers. Masters, 1848.

Among his points is the proposition that boychoirs produce a large number of vocations to the priesthood of the Church. True today?

Posted by Pax Britannica (# 1876) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Elgar, Finzi, Vaughan-Williams, and Britten can only be effectively sung by that particular brand of English sound...

and Palestrina, Victoria, and Allegri can only authentically be sung by castrati, a sound bearing no relation to that produced by either Tallis Scholars or Willcocks/Kings.

Is that a third way that we might fruitfully (as it were) pursue?

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Degs:

quote:
*whispers* I confess to having a secret fetish for recordings of Kings done in the 1960s, wobbles and all... Not so much because of the sound they made, as from the historical point of view, and I probably enjoy it because of associations I have with it.../*whispers*
I think they were at their best in David Willcocks day!

Not sure about that, because I have some very good Cleobury recordings (although I refuse to get the Rachmaninoff Vespers - that ain't meant to be sung by boys, however much they butch it up!). The 60's Kings sound will always be very special though, not least because of the Roy Goodman recording of the Miserere, which people really noticed. It's still the best English language recording though, even if that's not quite the Done Thing these days.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Elgar, Finzi, Vaughan-Williams, and Britten can only be effectively sung by that particular brand of English sound, imo. A sound that can be replicated by non-English people, of course. How generous of me to say so - I know

Absolutely right, IMNSHO. That's the sound they were written for. Having said that, though, Britten wrote a lot of music for Westminster Cathedral, because he liked the 'edginess' of their sound that Anglican choirs generally didn't have in the 40's and 50's.

Interesting to see what will happen now that Neary and O'Donnell have switched jobs, though!

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

What a difference a day makes. Let's see...

ABL, the 'Continental' distinction you make is an interesting one and one I've spent some time researching. There are a number of contributing factors, one important one being a matter of what might simply be called relative strength/presence or weakness/absence of different overtones in relation to the fundamental, or base resonance of each note sung. I won't belabor it beyond that: Lord knows that M&B choirs are quirky enough w/out some extraneous musical physics lesson attached. To this end, however, Chorister is absolutely right to imply that much credit/blame for a choir's corporate timber may be laid at the choirmaster's/director's feet. "English" and "Continental" treble sounds are styles of tone production and performance that may be taught and learned. Chorister is also in tune with me re: boys singing/men singing. Perhaps more on this in another thread.

Duo, I understand. Thank you. Equal access, time, acknowledgement, opportunity for girls/women by all means. Your point:

quote:
The trouble with championing the tradition of M&B choirs on the basis of their sound is that it can encourage the sort of thought process that, consciously or not, regards mixed choirs or all female choirs as a lesser order of being, because they have a different sound.

troubles me slightly. IMO a sonic distinction ought to be 'championed' on both ends of the gender scale. I'd much rather discern and celebrate the unique qualities of both -- even all -- types of choirs. To a degree, this goes to Chorister's issue of attracting boys into this tradition. I think your concern is valid, but more one of posture and presentation that I, for one, am careful to handle tactfully. Degs, I think the case of describing a boy treble's sound as having 'purity' is an example of what Duo is describing. (We all probably know exactly what you mean when you said that.) There are so many aspects of a sound, though, and so many undeniable differneces between men and women, boys and girls, etc. I'm for illuminating and celebrating those, however, not detracting from all until we have a rather homogeneous, but empty understanding, musically speaking, of course.

Panda, many elements of your post with which I agree, particularly:

quote:
The problem seems two-fold: directors of girls' choirs (in my experience) are very keen on them being good singers, but are equally keen on them sounding like boys, i.e. a very pure and 'white' sound (not racially white, but undiluted white).

Yes. I alluded to this, perhaps too snydely, for which Nunc has taken me to task. More on that in a moment.

quote:
And, most of these directors have little experience with how a girl's voice actually works, being different from a boy's voice.

Many directors don't know, I mean really know how the human voice works. Strange, sad, but true.

quote:
Many cathedral girls' choirs kick the girls out at 14 - why? Because if they were boys that's when their voices would break.

This is what I mean: good intentions (?) gone bad.

quote:
The other thing to consider is that for the most part, boys don't want to sing with girls. At that age, they prefer a male-only environment. Having girls around can confirm a sneaking suspicion that like knitting and playing with barbies, singing is for girls. (said with a sneer, as only an 11-year old can!)

Right. Again, sad but true, and probably the most obvious and frustrating argument to support Chorister's boys-who-sing --> men-who-sing thing.

OK Nunc, I'm buckling down. (not to be confused with diggin in or backpedaling)

quote:
Oh yeah? What of those of us who by default have pure voices? What? Just because we're girls we are de facto expected to have huge operatic vibratos, and therefore be faking a "boy-like" sound?
What a load of old tosh. I couldn't produce a wobble if I tried.

I say good for you if your voice is 'pure.' No qualms. No, but you can't disagree with the fact that some directors do instruct their women to sing a la boy trebles. It happens, often in an attempt to generate an "English cathedral" sound. It's somewhat of a broad, generalized style attempt. If you talk to enough choral directors -- I know it's true of many American directors -- I think you'd find it wasn't as much 'tosh' as you say. Vibrato -- not going down that road right now other than to say that I consider it natural and that the counters, tenors, and basses in my choir all regularly apply it, appropriately, IMO.

quote:
The concept of misogyny in relation to girls and cathedral choirs, I think, holds true.

I'm not claiming that is't not still out there -- misogyny -- and where it is I hope it dies quickly. Perhaps the M&B tradition was initiated under those circumstances, but there's no good reason for it to remain as such. Although, you evidently found my reference to women trying to sound like boy trebles misogynist. I understand and do apologize. Mindless of me. But I hadn't intended for that bit and the bit about recordings to be linked. You said that the undergrad choirs are sounding better than the college choirs of M&B. Likely so. I've just heard a lot of mixed collegiate ensembles (over here in the US) with sopranos singing with a tight, forced, edgy straight-tone. I married a conservatory-trained soprano (a whole other issue[!], but I hope you see my point) and am all for women in music. ADD scholarships for the women, though, please; don't take them away from deserving boys. Leveling the playing field via subtraction/detraction is a failing philpsophy. IMO.

quote:
Having said this, I take more issue with your expression, Riv, than with your statement of ardour for M&B choirs. Seeing as I happen to like the sound myself.

Issue well taken, and again, I apologize for offending. I'm glad we have a common appreciation -- choral music, and even M&B choirs.

quote:
I would far rather listen to The Sixteen, or the Tallis Scholars, than to a crappily led, crappily trained, bad sounding, off-key M&B choir.

Me too, and who wouldnt!

quote:
My opinion is that chant sounds best when chanted either by men or women; the homogenity of sound is what matters...

I agree, and my choirs and I call it (Gregorian chant) Vitamin C.

Now that it's taken me three and a half hours to write this (between classes) I eagerly return to the thread, and look forward to more.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panis Angelicus:
J.E. Millard wrote a now-obscure but mildly interesting defense of what he called the "office" of boy-choristers in 1847:

Historical Notices of the Office of Choristers. Masters, 1848.

I'll have to wait until I get home to read this. Looking forward to it, though.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

I do resent the suggestion that women try to create a sound like that of boy trebles. Women singing Anglican church music simply try to sing it well, and are sensitive enough to recognise that this just does not call for a full bodied 'underwater' warble. Lots of women do warble, it is true, but they tend not to be in church choirs or to have any kind of musical competence whatsoever.

As someone correctly pointed out, women in the religious houses of Europe have been singing liturgical music for just as long as men have, and ALWAYS sing plainsong better than men. Don't mix voices in plainsong, I agree, but if it is one or the other, forget Solesmes and get the women to do it. Somehow they seem to be less shackled to foursquare rhythm than men.

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
As someone correctly pointed out, women in the religious houses of Europe have been singing liturgical music for just as long as men have, and ALWAYS sing plainsong better than men.

In your opinion.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Panda, re the Westminster Abbey/Cathedral double-shuffle; When I listened to the Queen Mum's funeral music last year I had the impression that James O'Donnell had the Abbey boys sounding much more like the Cathedral choir I had heard back in 1999-and fruity does not describe that sound. It was forthright, clear and moved along beautifully. I haven't been back to hear what Martin Baker is soing at the Cathedral...maybe in a year or three.

cheers,

m

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

quote:
Among his points is the proposition that boychoirs produce a large number of vocations to the priesthood of the Church. True today?

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me, pick me!

But I'm the only one I know.... [Frown]

Posted by aig (# 429) on :

I like the sound made by all male choirs - if they are good. Unfortunately I think they have a very limited place in the Church - for all the reasons of exclusiveness that people have stated.
So, why not have a secular society of Male voice choirs and keep everyone happy. [Cool]

(From woman of a liturgical, musical bent who was not allowed to sing or serve in church until the age of 18 years - due to being the wrong sex [Mad]

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I'm always interested to read about how exclusive and misodynistic choirs of men and boys are. IN my diocese of 94 parishes, two of them have a choir of men and boys, and those two ALSO have mixed choirs.

So of 94 parishes in my diocese, women sing liturgically in ALL 94.

It doesn't seem to me that boy trebles are threatening to oust any women from singing in church around here.

The retention of far stranger and more esoteric liturgical oddities is regularly advocated on this board than the simple pleasure (in the, what?, 1% of places that still have them) of choirs of men and boys.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

The Riv on Nunc Dimittis:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would far rather listen to The Sixteen, or the Tallis Scholars, than to a crappily led, crappily trained, bad sounding, off-key M&B choir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me too, and who wouldnt!

I would much rather listen to neither. The Sixteen, the Tallis Scholars and Trinity, Cambridge, leave me completely cold. They sing all the notes beautifully in the right order with some nice phrasing, but to me they give absolutely no sense of the meaning of the music or the words, let alone any deeper meanings. Whenever I listen to one of their CDs I can't help thinking that if they went from Byrd's Ave Verum to Land of Hope & Glory they would sing them both exactly the same - passionless in both cases. Now the Monteverdi Choir is something different, but I still prefer to listen to B&M.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Pre-cambrian:

I was choosing from what was offered! I would still rather hear The Sixteen or TS than, er... crickets!

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

What's wrong with crickets? Do you also not appreciate the spring peepers? (Perhaps you don't have them in Texas, though.)

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :

I don't think u'd like Texas crickets, jlg. They are nasty, smelly, and can take over a building after the first big Fall rains.

I think even Fiddleback would prefer male choirs to them.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

Just come back from Evenscream feeling vindicated in my pronouncements on plainsong. This morning the women in our choir sang the Missa de Angelis which was quite heavenly. This evening the men completely bugger*d up the plainsong responses. They just can't do it.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Yesterday I crossed the Tiber and spent the morning at High Mass at Christ Church St Laurence, for a Laetare Sunday treat. The mixed choir (including some old ducks who are my contemporaries) sang Howells' Collegium Regale and Elgar's Ave Verum Corpus. The latter is not a favourite of mine but it was a knockout rendition of same and I was transported. Move over, King's!!

cheers,

m

Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on :

Father Fiddleback talks a load of contradictory rubbish:

quote:
adult sopranos make a much better sound than boy trebles [and] read music better

Lots of women do warble it is true, but they tend not to be in church choirs or to have any kind of musical competence whatsoever.

I am not opposed to children being in choirs - and in fact it is something I am very much trying to encourage here.

the men completely bugger*d up the plainsong responses. They just can't do it.

What exactly is the composition of your ideal choir, Father? Girls only, presumably, as boys, women and men are all crap.

Exactly which undergraduate Oxbridge choirs have eclipsed the boys' and mens' choirs? Name three. Perhaps the cathedral choirs aren't making recording because they are too busy singing 6 or 7 services a week to the glory of God.

And as for the good Father's almost-stated suggestion that only people who like boys would like boys' choirs ... how come you're so keen to rubbish everybody except young girls, Father? Well, you gave it, Father, so you're jolly well going to get some back!

And has it not dawned on anybody that the reasons for having children (including boys!) in church choirs include teaching them to sing, read music and understand the liturgy - and to get them into church in the first place to try and give them a Christian view on life whilst they are still impressionable.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I suspect my views are very close to Nunc and aig's. My father, who ran a church choir, was very fond of the saying, "one boy is worth six girls." Unfortunately he applied it to everything and after a period of rabid anti-male feeling in my late teens, I still don't much buy the whole M&B thing.

My favourite choirs are the Bach Collegium Japan or Cappella Reial de Catalunya. Look them up.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Nunc, I once was part of a women's chant choir that was very well rehearsed on even the simplest plainsong, in order to achieve the smoothest, most seamless tone possible. The recordings we made were occasionally approaching perfect, and we were all very proud of them and of our invitations to sing away from our sponsoring church. We were especially fond of our monthly Evensong services, each themed for the season or a saint's day. Our leader did a great deal of research to find the old chants we did. Thank you for your comments, because I found the time I spent in the group extremely satisfying. [Smile]

(sorry to be so long-winded)

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:
They don't , BTW, feature adult sopranos who try to sound like boy trebles
Oh yeah? What of those of us who by default have pure voices? What? Just because we're girls we are de facto expected to have huge operatic vibratos, and therefore be faking a "boy-like" sound?

What a load of old tosh. I couldn't produce a wobble if I tried.

Very true - I'm not exactly operatic either. I also agree with the other posters about the effect of the direction upon sound. Although it is obvious when you think about it - if you are continually being pulled up for any suspicion of vibrato, it will have its effect eventually. (Madame expects his sopranos to sing like boys and his altos to sing like castrati. Last week, to my joy, he accused his all female line-up of altos of "singing like a load of girls".)

quote:

quote:
One of the best mixed ensembles around in Sydney is the Jacobeans (the former choir of St James, King Street, after a bust-up some years back with a cloth eared vicar). They have an impressive treble line-up of boys and girls, together with adult sopranos. Perfectly straight and sweet-toned with nary a wobble.
My dear Duo, I beg to differ. They sang at my parish last Sunday (I was subdeacon) - Byrd 4 part. It was perfectly appalling. Especially considering my choir (our parish choir) sang it the previous week. The entries were uneven and weak, the tone was all over the place, the pace was far too slow. They may have been good once, but several people have commented that their quality has declined. Yes they still draw the boys and some girls, but there's alot of dead wood there...

The Jacobeans' decline may have something to do with the fact that Walter Sutcliffe doesn't appear to be very well; when they sing at St M's he usually plays, but he was extremely reluctant to climb the stairs on Sunday morning. He looked very pale and pasty.

That's a shame. I had heard that Walter Sutcliffe wasn't well. I have certainly heard them sound pretty good in the past.

Incidentally on the subject of changed fortunes, I heard the M&B choir down at St Mary's on Sunday, under the direction of Elizabeth Swain. The boys, in particular, are singing with much better discipline and produce a clear strong tone which isn't English, but isn't fruity continental either. In fact, I thought the tone was pretty good across all voices. They are a consonant free zone, however - not enough enunciation.

For my own part, I do have a weakness for the Westminster Cathedral Choir (as led by the blessed James), King's College Choir (in the days of David Willcocks - I have a recording of Gibbons anthems at home...) and the Oxford Camerata.

I do take the point about mixed girls and boys choirs potentially discouraging the boys. But the point remains: choral scholarships should encourage both boys and girls - of all ages.

On the point of Gregorian chant or plainsong and mixed choirs - it very much depends on the setting. All male or all female scholas do sound good, in that synchronisation and uniformity of tone may be easier. However, plainchant has a vital dimension springing from the spiritual life of the community that sings the chant. It is the expression of that spiritual life - which is necessarily mixed gender in parishes. Mixed groups also have the opportunity to add additional textures into the chant by the use of male and female cantors or smaller vocal groups within the main schola.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Well, I am operatic - and absolutely loathed singing in choirs, all the more because, since I am a lyrico spinto soprano, too many directors forced me into an alto section because of the dark timbre of my voice. I then would need three days' practise to recover my normal voice, considering I normally had to 'whisper on pitch'.

I think we need to guard against reading too much into the way music is performed. I have never seen the use of male choirs as in any way misogynist. Please excuse the silly analogy, but a piece originally written for a particular sound often does not sound right when it is performed otherwise - the effect can be akin to that of a part scored for violin being played on a trumpet (which I doubt is discriminatory against specialists in brass.)

Yes, I am aware that, particularly in the early decades of the last century, there were writers (especially Roman Catholic) who saw danger in mixed choirs - apparently singing in the same loft was assumed to be a shortcut to sexual arousal. But I do not see why having music intended for voices of those of one sex is a condemnation of those of the other.

My personal peeve (natural, for one who once studied music in a women's college) is when pieces originally scored for mixed voices (for example) are arranged for all women. Or when women, probably the few true altos, sing the tenor parts because there are no men available in a mixed choir.

I believe that Westminster Cathedral has the best choir I have heard anywhere. I find this astonishing largely because not only Roman Catholic parishes (where the music has gone from dismal to grotesque, as I learnt at a few recent funerals) but the Sistine Choir itself had led me to believe that the eleventh commandment was "RC choirs must be horrid."

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
(Madame expects his sopranos to sing like boys and his altos to sing like castrati. Last week, to my joy, he accused his all female line-up of altos of "singing like a load of girls".)

Maybe he should tell them to sing "like a bunch of old queens"... [Big Grin]

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Just come back from Evenscream feeling vindicated in my pronouncements on plainsong. This morning the women in our choir sang the Missa de Angelis which was quite heavenly. This evening the men completely bugger*d up the plainsong responses. They just can't do it.

Evenscream? You know, Fiddleback, you're starting to arouse my pity. This is only one, IYO, unfortunate choir!

Those poor men. Struggling to do something perfectly possible while an expert like yourself sits back with his arms crossed not only permitting their difficulty, but criticizing it to the end of his own discrimination. I'll thank you to keep quiet re: misogyny as long as your seething anti-male rhetoric lingers.

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :

<aside>

Only on Ship of Fools would discussion of choirs produce such heat. [Big Grin]

</aside>

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

Gosh, MarkthePunk, you probably don't even care if penitential processions go round the church clockwise or counter-clockwise. [Wink]

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
Those poor men. Struggling to do something perfectly possible while an expert like yourself sits back with his arms crossed not only permitting their difficulty, but criticizing it to the end of his own discrimination.

I wouldn't be too sympathetic to them. Most of them are, sadly, cr*p and more concerned with lavatorial arrangements in the Fiddleback Basilica than what quality of music might emerge from their mouths.

That being said, Prof. Fiddleback is riding for a bit of a fall here methinks. There are few college choirs that are women and men that outrank the boys and men choirs of Oxbridge (perhaps Trinity Cambridge or Gonville and Caius or King's London) and even those are, by and large, very uniform in their 'straight' tone and style. That is partly because of the massive love affair with dinosaur music in the colleges and the inherent desire of the directors to make their women sound like English boys who can breathe longer in a line of Palestrina. Give the women a decent piece of Mozart, Haydn, Handel or Vierne to sing (English boys not being very good at this more butch stuff) and let them give free rein to their voices instead of trying to sound like the bland mezzo-forte toothpaste singing of the Tallis Scholars. Paradoxically, before the late 1950's and 60's, English trebles were trained to sing like operatic women. Any recordings of the Temple Church in the 1930's for example have the soloists sounding like Dame Clara Butt. The re-discovery of dinosaur music in the 60's and the desire for 'straight' tone has led to young women thinking they all have to sound like Emma Kirkby.

In any case I don't think we have to worry about the cathedrals and the colleges yet (although it will be interesting to see whether the Llandaff model of choirmen who didn't sing as boys will be repeated with the gradual encroachment of girls in traditionally boys-only choirs and the possible falling off of men to fill the lay clerk ranks) but much more worrying are the parish churches. The standard of choral music in the parishes is, outside of London, depressingly poor and scarcely a boy can be seen singing precisely because, as has been pointed out before, a ten year old boy is not going to sing with a load of girls. Also it doesn't help that most clergy are in thrall to crappy congregational mass settings or want to do away with a robed choir altogether in favour of a 'band', worship songs and 'family' services.

Cosmo

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Most of them are, sadly, cr*p and more concerned with lavatorial arrangements in the Fiddleback Basilica than what quality of music might emerge from their mouths.

Ah yes, whatever did happen with the Fat Git in Fiddleback's choir? Did he get his enlarged loo loo or did the BVM get a bower? Is the FG still singing in FB's chancel, or did he decamp for more roomy lavvies and a place that did evening communion?

We must be told.

With apologies for the tangent,

HT

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

leaving the Geneva Gown on it's hook--but within reach

My, but it's getting warm in here. Perhaps if I open a few windows to let in some cooler air, folks can take some nice deep breaths before going on.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

Two strikes. [Eek!]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
I'll thank you to keep quiet re: misogyny as long as your seething anti-male rhetoric lingers.

Father Fiddleback can't be that anti-male since he did attend the SKCM service at the Banqueting House. And in a raincoat, too, as I recall.

Ouch! Don't hit me again Siegfried. I'll stop.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Perhaps Father dislikes heterosexual males. Could it be that the males in his choir are of the straight persuasion? That would explain their inability to sing (or dance for that matter).
The fat git would seem to be your stereotypical het. I visualize him reading the sports section comfortably seated on a royal-flush Kohler.

Greta

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
much more worrying are the parish churches. The standard of choral music in the parishes is, outside of London, depressingly poor and scarcely a boy can be seen singing precisely because, as has been pointed out before, a ten year old boy is not going to sing with a load of girls. Also it doesn't help that most clergy are in thrall to crappy congregational mass settings or want to do away with a robed choir altogether in favour of a 'band', worship songs and 'family' services.

Cosmo

I agree with you Cosmo that parish churches are where the situation is most dire. Keeping a choir going is sheer dedication and hard work - it needs the full co-operation of the vicar as well as the organist/choirmaster. I reckon that choir members are among the most faithful and regular of the congregation - because they have to turn up every sunday.
At the moment we have more boys than girls singing (unusual?)

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:
(Madame expects his sopranos to sing like boys and his altos to sing like castrati. Last week, to my joy, he accused his all female line-up of altos of "singing like a load of girls".)

Maybe he should tell them to sing "like a bunch of old queens"...

Oh dear.

Oh dear. Oh dear.

You know when things are bad when you start dreaming of stuff that you imagine when you are posting...

Last night I dreamt of the "bunch of old queens" - most of the parish of St Frank's turned up in drag - and quite stunning drag it was too - for Sunday mass.

I was the only straight person there. It was such fun. The interior arrangement of the church was bit odd though: the "bunch of old queens" were all seated in bays around tables - like a homescience kitchen in a school... And these bays, apart from the sanctuary itself, were arranged like petals around the central nave (which was domed). The Sanctuary was a larger petal-shaped space coming off the main nave/dome, and it contained an altar (of course) and there were chairs where the sanctuary rails should have been, their backs to the congregation - I believe there were 12 of them. I believe the Canon was said East-facing towards the rose window above the altar.

So what's the interpretation of the dream? That I have been reading too much mystical Marian theology? Thinking too much about Our Lady? Fantasising over drag queens? (Some of them were stunning!)

Or maybe I have just spent far too much time in Anglo-Catholic circles...

[Ultra confused]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
So what's the interpretation of the dream? That I have been reading too much mystical Marian theology? Thinking too much about Our Lady? Fantasising over drag queens? (Some of them were stunning!)

Or maybe I have just spent far too much time in Anglo-Catholic circles...

I think someone needs to take your temperature! And stay away from tattoists - once my Marian phase was over (it took about 12 years, mind you) I have had to live with the Marian rose I have tattoed on my arm. It needs tattoing over, really.

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

I was the only straight person there. It was such fun. The interior arrangement of the church was bit odd though: the "bunch of old queens" were all seated in bays around tables - like a homescience kitchen in a school... And these bays, apart from the sanctuary itself, were arranged like petals around the central nave (which was domed). The Sanctuary was a larger petal-shaped space coming off the main nave/dome, and it contained an altar (of course) and there were chairs where the sanctuary rails should have been, their backs to the congregation - I believe there were 12 of them. I believe the Canon was said East-facing towards the rose window above the altar.

So what's the interpretation of the dream? That I have been reading too much mystical Marian theology? Thinking too much about Our Lady? Fantasising over drag queens? (Some of them were stunning!)

Or maybe I have just spent far too much time in Anglo-Catholic circles...

Yes, yes - but was the liturgy celebrated according to tradition and the rubrics of the Mass?

The funny thing once you take away the bays and the petal-shaped stuff and shift the rose window to the eastern end of the church ....it's not a bad description of St Frank's.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

(well, I did try to get the conversation back on track [Roll Eyes]

)

retires with a shrug [Disappointed]

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

Sorry Chorister.

You are right about the dedication required for parish choirs... And the team effort it is to run one effectively.

I think it lovely, though very unusual, that you have so many boys. I hope they will go on to be excellent Tenors and Basses. [Yipee]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

From the obituary of Lionel Dakers in The Guardian:

quote:
He closed the residential College of St Nicolas, at Addington palace, which then became a centre for short courses, expanded music publishing, strengthened the regional provision of committees, and encouraged ecumenical outreach. The closure of the college was a sensible decision at the time - it was expensive, and was not recruiting well; but, with hindsight, it removed the educational core, and the RSCM did not develop the comprehensive training for parish church musicians that its founder had envisaged - and the churches still badly need.

For a slight tangent, but better than drag queens [Big Grin]

, can anyone enlighten me as to what this means? About the RSCM not developing comprehensive training for parish church musicians?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've just revisited this thread after a long break, and I am puzzled too. The RSCM is certainly alive and well in this area - approx. 2 events every month - and how many people from Devon were prepared to travel all the way to Addington palace anyway? National courses are great, and the RSCM still run them (their scope has diversified to include music group leaders, which some criticise, but they need to be trained as well) - but how much better to run courses in each county which people can travel to more easily. They also do a lot more schools work these days.
Maybe some parts of the country / world are not so lucky, let me know what it is like in your area.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Nunc, I am happy to report that of the boys whose voices have broken in recent years, 2 have stayed on to become tenors and 2 stayed on to become basses. As we are not a university town, we generally lose them at the age of 18 which is a pity - hopefully they will go on to become useful choir members elsewhere (and come back and join us for the holidays, at least for the first few years!)
Now we need some more younger ones again.......

Posted by Dies Irae (# 2804) on :

Indeed, I am one of those types to whom Chorister refers, well, almost.

I had very little musical experience as a child, except for a few Viola lessons when about 11, they were not hugely successful.

At 16 I joined the choir of the church I had just started attending and sang Bass, I was somewhat 'carried' by the other stronger basses aroud me. However, having now been at university for two years my voice and my musical aptitude have developed considerably. When home for the holidays I sing with the choir again and even managed a tenor(!) solo at the Nine Lessons and Carols last year. This development would not have been possible if it had not been for that parish church choir, and I can see how this is of obvious benefit to the musical education of boys if they get the chance to start earlier (I wish I had).

What for me is more concerning than the changing patterns by gender of membership of choirs, is the apparent lack of interest from children at all. Our choir benefitted from around 16 boys trebles and a small choir of 8ish girls voices, the original proposal was to build a new set of stalls for the girls to occupy asd the boys filled the original stalls, now we are fortunate if we ever fill the original stalls with boys and girls mixed! Particularly alarming is the fact that boy membership has slumped to around 4!

Putting my head above the parapet here, I have to say that I prefer the sound of boys' voices to those of girls or women, especially for church music. There seems to be something purer and less breathy about a real treble's voice, that's not to see that some girls and women haven't achieved this too.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Will you be at Exeter Cathedral for the RSCM Anniversary Songs of Praise Broadcast, DI? Mass Gathering of RSCM choristers (not all of them - too many to fit!) from Devon Area, plus cathedral choir. To be broadcast June 8th (Whit Sunday). Hope we can show that church choirs are still alive and kicking (and even singing!) in this part of the world.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
From the obituary of Lionel Dakers in "that other newspaper"

I remember reading an anecdote about Lionel Dakers (who was also OC at Exeter Cathedral for many years) lamenting the fact that the cathedral organist no longer wore morning dress for Mattins.

Very sad indeed.

Posted by wayward crucifer (# 152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dies Irae:

At 16 I joined the choir of the church I had just started attending and sang Bass, I was somewhat 'carried' by the other stronger basses aroud me. However, having now been at university for two years my voice and my musical aptitude have developed considerably. When home for the holidays I sing with the choir again and even managed a tenor(!) solo at the Nine Lessons and Carols last year. This development would not have been possible if it had not been for that parish church choir, and I can see how this is of obvious benefit to the musical education of boys if they get the chance to start earlier (I wish I had).

What for me is more concerning than the changing patterns by gender of membership of choirs, is the apparent lack of interest from children at all. Our choir benefitted from around 16 boys trebles and a small choir of 8ish girls voices, the original proposal was to build a new set of stalls for the girls to occupy asd the boys filled the original stalls, now we are fortunate if we ever fill the original stalls with boys and girls mixed! Particularly alarming is the fact that boy membership has slumped to around 4!

Putting my head above the parapet here, I have to say that I prefer the sound of boys' voices to those of girls or women, especially for church music. There seems to be something purer and less breathy about a real treble's voice, that's not to see that some girls and women haven't achieved this too.

I think the comment about the number in the stalls is, too sadly, true. But I can remember the days, before the girls started singing, when having 4 boys at the evening service was high attendance. I also think that, at this particular church, there are fewer children than there used to be a few years ago, and this has affected recruitment of younger members. At least there still are children in the choir, and enough to manage. I think that if we lose the children alltogether, then we risk creating a situation where a choir is seen to be for "old" people only. That way lies, I believe, the dismissal of the choir as pointless and irrelevant.
However, at least 5 of the men, and that's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, sang in that choir as boys - and I have heard stories of the tmes when there were so many boys that a row of chairs was a permanant addition to those choir stalls.
I also think, and this is suspect is true of almost all choirs, that things like the membership and enthusiasm move in cycles. I think Dies Irea started in the choir he refers to when it was more or less at the best it had been in the past ten years (or more). I only hope that things do start to improve with recruiting children, both boys and girls, and soon, because several of the men are in the soon to go to university and then leave age group.

With respect to the effect of the choir trainer, a little story.
The organist at my local cathedral retired, and was replaced by a new one, as tends to be the case. I took part in two services where the choir of this cathedral also sang, one a few months before the change in organist, one a mere six weeks after. In the first, the choir sounded OK - they were competent, but not exactly as fantastic as one would perhaps expect the cathedral choir to sound. Some people had even described the choir of my church as better than this choir.
After the new organist arrived, the difference was actually quite noticable. In six weeks he had the choir in a position where many of us at the service were pleasantly surprised by what we heard, and the sound was much better - given what we had expected, it was quite startling in fact.

Wayward

Posted by -blood-and-fire- (# 4377) on :

In a parish with a men and boy choir, would any girls and woman actually want to join a choir of only boys and men? Especially girls, they would feel completely..... out, which is sad as they may have real talent and great voices.
In my parish we have a mixed choir, but my servers are only boys- 12-16 year old boys. I find it immpossible to get girls to join. I beg and plead, and I know that they want to serve, but would feel completely out.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Maybe it varies in different countries, b+f. Here it would be more common for a very successful m+b choir to stay m+b; they would start a separate choir for the girls. A mixed choir would probably be considered if the numbers of boys dropped a long way, and then it wouldn't be so difficult to recruit girls. Maybe if you got the girl server wannabes into a group and trained them separately, they could start by doing additional services rather than the main services which are seen as the boys' domain.

What my church has seen happening in recent years, is that more and more adults want to join the choir and serve. It is great to encourage them but I would hate the kids to think that it is really for adults and then not want to take part themselves. It is difficult to get the balance just right. We have several families where the parent sings alongside the child, which works quite well in our situation.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What my church has seen happening in recent years, is that more and more adults want to join the choir and serve. It is great to encourage them but I would hate the kids to think that it is really for adults and then not want to take part themselves. It is difficult to get the balance just right. We have several families where the parent sings alongside the child, which works quite well in our situation.

Certainly the case for me. I was shoved into the junior choir (90% girls) at age 5 so my mother wouldn't have to cope with me as well as my 2-yr old sister. My older sister was already there, and my father was in the adult choir. I loved that he was there, even if he was in the back pew and I in the front.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Our situation is very much as Chorister describes. A M+B choir and a separate girls choir. They all sing together on Sunday mornings (in separate rows in the choir stalls) and then mix and match for Evensong - M+B, M+G, girls only. So the top line is overwhelmingly children. Then there is another adult choir which does mid week saints days. A number of the ex-boys come into the back row, but they almost all turn out to be baritones [Roll Eyes]

.

But where I was a choirboy in Lincolnshire is having great problems like so many parishes outside the cities.

Someone mentioned the need for the support of the vicar. Also the church has to be prepared to pay for the level/scale of music it wants. The average choirmaster's salary can only be a top-up to a full-time job, which can make it difficult to get someone to move on account of the job, so you are dependent on the talent already in the area. And in London there's also the problem of the cost of accommodation.

Posted by madkaren (# 1033) on :

So there doesn't seem to be much for a female who sings alto (like me - who dropped out of uni choir because I couldn't sight read music btw)?? It's all kids, or soprano's being told to sound like kids, or blokes from what is being said here...

Whats a counter tenor anyway?

MadKaren

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

It's a tenor who can keep with the beat. Not so rare as a similar bass perhaps, but tenors don't have to sing as many notes.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There will always be a place for women in choirs - just not always in the church of your choice. Lots and lots of choirs have women singing Alto and many the top line.
Regarding not being able to read music, madkaren, this probably depends on the attitude of the choir trainer. Some are very busy and don't really want to have people in the choir who are not able to read music or teach themselves. Others are very accommodating and are welcoming to anyone with a blendable sounding voice, as the ability to read music can be taught later. Some people in my choir find it hard to read music, but are prepared to work on it at home, bashing the notes out on a piano, eg.
John Bell does workshops in which he argues that everyone should be able to sing, whether they think they can or not. Much of what he teaches does not involve looking at music at all - it is all taught by rote.
So don't give up yet, madkaren, you might need to look around for the 'right' choirtrainer.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

madkaren, a countertenor is a male voice singing alto. (You may file Pre-cambrian's remarks under "Choir Jokes" or just choose to ignore them.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

A countertenor is a tenor who can count - yes very good! [Killing me]

(missed that one first time through)

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

On a more serious point, some choir masters prefer to have adults because it can mean a rather easier time than dealing with children. A choir of trained adults is a piece of cake compared to a choir or boys and/or girls when it comes to learning new pieces, and you don't need to go through the constant effort of replenishing numbers and teaching afresh, which is particularly the case with boys with their short singing lives.

Posted by madkaren (# 1033) on :

Thats what I suspected...both the real answer and pre-cambrian's joke. I guess jokes get worse the older one gets.... [Smile]

MadKaren

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

4,000 million years isn't old!!!

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
On a more serious point, some choir masters prefer to have adults because it can mean a rather easier time than dealing with children. A choir of trained adults is a piece of cake compared to a choir or boys and/or girls when it comes to learning new pieces, and you don't need to go through the constant effort of replenishing numbers and teaching afresh, which is particularly the case with boys with their short singing lives.

This is also a sound reason for working with girls - assuming you don't kick them out at 14 you have a steady base to work with, and the voices change a bit but not drastically. As well, the maturity level and sit-still ability of an 11-yr old girl far outreaches that of an 11-yr old boy.

However, when it comes to teaching new music, your adults need to be trained in order to learn quickly. Unless you have good sight-readers among them, it is far easier and quicker to teach by rote to children. They think it's fun, and they enjoy singing by heart, which adults hate. Take away their music - even try and make them not look at it - and they panic. Freaky...

Posted by Blood and Fire (# 4377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
the case with boys with their short singing lives.

Short singing lives? Why?
(Excuse my ignorance)

Posted by Sacristan (# 3548) on :

Because their voices change.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

And in some churches and cathedrals that means they have to leave the choir (they may rejoin later when their voices have settled to an adult part, but often not in the same choir - every choir needs more trebles than lower parts for reasons of volume).
However, in other churches, mine included, the boys are gladly welcomed into the back row of the choirstalls as soon as their voices change, to sing the part with which they are most comfortable. So some go straight to tenor or bass, some sing alto (usually for a while, although occasionally one may stay as an alto). Because of the problem of losing boys altogether when they stop singing treble, more churches encourage them to stay in the choir, or give them a chance to become servers/acolytes/crossbearers during adolescence.

Do I gather it is different in S.Africa?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
from Blood and Fire:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
the case with boys with their short singing lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short singing lives? Why?
(Excuse my ignorance)

Believe me, if you'd met some of our boys you'd be wondering why we couldn't cut short more than their singing lives.

Chorister: we generally take a lot of ex-trebles into the men's choir as well, although we tend to give a bit of time for the yodelling to stop, and to hope that they don't end up as basses. But they still hang around wanting to get back in. Maybe it's a little-acknowledged benefit of haveing a girls choir. It's fascinating the way "yeuch, girlies" becomes "woof woof, girls!". A little-acknowledged drawback is that it may encourage everything to drop earlier, thereby shortening their treble singing lives even more.

[Fixed quote tags. Please use preview post.]

[ 13. May 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

Posted by Blood and Fire (# 4377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And in some churches and cathedrals that means they have to leave the choir (they may rejoin later when their voices have settled to an adult part, but often not in the same choir - every choir needs more trebles than lower parts for reasons of volume).
However, in other churches, mine included, the boys are gladly welcomed into the back row of the choirstalls as soon as their voices change, to sing the part with which they are most comfortable. So some go straight to tenor or bass, some sing alto (usually for a while, although occasionally one may stay as an alto). Because of the problem of losing boys altogether when they stop singing treble, more churches encourage them to stay in the choir, or give them a chance to become servers/acolytes/crossbearers during adolescence.

Do I gather it is different in S.Africa?

I have no idea. I am the head server, not the choir master and I have little to do with the choir, except hear them sing, cense them and fight with the choir master beacause I want kids to serve and he wants them to sing. I do suppose this is the case, though. As for the question of boy's short singing lives, I know their voices change (I was also a boy)but I never thought this meant they could no longer sing. But I see now, thanks.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

They can certainly sing, just not sing treble.

To win the love and admiration of your choir director, why not hold off poaching the boys until he tells you someone's voice has changed, and then approach him? The boy in question is probably feeling self-concious about the new croaks, and may be glad of somewhere to 'hide out' until things stabilise.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

ON RIGHT NOW on BBC3 - Evensong from St David's cathrdral: girls and men. Can you tell the difference?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

St Davids is an interesting mirror image of the usual scenario. The cathedral choir is men and girls, but there is a separate, quite recently started, boys choir that sings occasionally.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
St Davids is an interesting mirror image of the usual scenario. The cathedral choir is men and girls, but there is a separate, quite recently started, boys choir that sings occasionally.

Yup - it's all the girls' younger brothers.

Posted by Shrinking Violet (# 4587) on :

My father sang in St Andrews Cathedral choir as a boy soprano and yet he has no preference or bias over these types of choir. I now sing alto in the local church choir and my father loves to come and listen to me sing.

[Waterworks]

I would hate it if I couldn't sing...

I think there is a place for males AND females in choirs, everybody should have the chance to worship through music.

Besides, I don't think that a young boy soprano is *that* distinguishable from a very good young girl soprano.

Singing and signing off.....

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

quote:
I would hate it if I couldn't sing...

Spare a thought for the St Andrew's Cathedral(Syd) choristers today!

[Mad]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Yes, indeed.

And Violet, that is precisely what riles this middle-aged and multiparous chorister (in a very trad robed RC parish choir) -that well-worn attitude that a girl soprano has to be regarded as "very good" before she is on par with ANY wretched boy!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jugular:

quote:
I would hate it if I couldn't sing...
Spare a thought for the St Andrew's Cathedral(Syd) choristers today!

I know how it feels: these priests tell you the choir is 'alien to their culture'. However, I find such an attitude 'alien to my culture' [Razz]

I hope people who have had the unfortunate experience of being in a church where the vicar / minister has got rid of the choir will try to find somewhere else to sing - it is a pity if their talent is wasted, especially when other church choirs are crying out for more members.

Several of the choirs in my area have received members from two large local choirs which were forcibly disbanded by Jensen-type vicars - one a mixed choir, the other all-male. One church's loss is another church's gain.......

Posted by Shrinking Violet (# 4587) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:

And Violet, that is precisely what riles this middle-aged and multiparous chorister (in a very trad robed RC parish choir) -that well-worn attitude that a girl soprano has to be regarded as "very good" before she is on par with ANY wretched boy!

Oh dear, I didn't mean it like that [Embarrassed]

What I meant was that a very good boy soprano is difficult to distinguish from a very good girl soprano. Sorry. [Help]

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

(personal tangent)

Coming from an RC background and worshipping in the CoC now - we are all the choir. NO choice. NT example ties singing in with worship so well, we can't get out of it.

Which is Good. I, too, cannot stop singing.

My daughter, sister & I did a walk-on with the church choir at my grandmother's funeral Mass last July. We'd never met these people before, but they took us in with them without a qualm. "Sight-unheard". It was beautiful, being able to serve Mamman and the rest of the family in that way. Sis and I don't read music as well as Jess, but when you've a good ear and it's traditional music, you can do a good job.

I love to listen to an all-male choir. Especially in a cathedral with the acoustics to really make it glorious-sounding.

(/tangent)

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Aaaawwww Violet, don't shrink-I knew what you REALLY meant!

cheers,

m

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

<Bump>

Just thought I'd resurrect this before someone started a new thread.

Since same ol' same ol' is in the news again.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

'Traditionalists' are the sort of people who are rather keen on beating boys, I should have thought.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

I may have overlooked something in the article, but I have methodological questions regarding the 130 listeners. Were they drawn from the general population? Was there any attempt to establish whether or not they had any experience in listening to choral music, or serious music at all for that matter?

I found no mention of controls for ability to make simple musical or even sonic judgments. Could they, for example, distinguish a tenor from a counter-tenor or even a bass from an alto? Could they detect from listening that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is is a somewhat larger group than the Cambridge Singers?

The average person on the street would probably be unable to distinguish a boy choir (or a girl choir for that matter) from the Muppets particularly if the three groups were singing something as rarefied as Anglican liturgical music.

Unless the 130 listeners had at some degree of musical sophistication, I would give no weight to their ability to make esoteric musical judgments.

Moreover, in my opinion, the tired referemce to "sexism" betrays more than a little experimental bias.

Greta

[ 09. September 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posted by Flounder (# 3859) on :

Interesting.

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
<Bump>

Just thought I'd resurrect this before someone started a new thread.

Since same ol' same ol' is in the news again.

***

When I was a little girl, then a teenager, I had that husky speaking voice but a very clear singing voice. I was much louder than the boys and didn't really blend in with the group too well. My voice resembled a very loud boy alto with a couple of high notes, along with some extra low notes thrown in.

<Boring Tangent> Later, as my voice started to mature in college, I sounded sort of like a countertenor. Eww. [Disappointed]

But hey, at least that got me the lead in a medieval miracle drama: The Miracles of St. Nicholas — The King of Getron.

Then in grad school, I finally started to sound like a woman — a lyric mezzo. Now that I am, um, a bit past grad school, I am settling into the lower mezzo and contralto literature. I'll be getting my first taste of Verdi soon! [Two face]

</Boring Tangent>

[ 09. September 2003, 17:31: Message edited by: Flounder ]

Posted by The Dumb Acolyte (# 1158) on :

It's important to note that the researcher claims the girls are indistinguishable from the boys only when they are singing ensemble, but not when they are singing solo. "Once in Royal David's City" anyone?

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

I have heard same sung by a pre-pubertal girl who was hidden from the view of all the admiring men-and -boys aficionados who thought she WAS a boy;they could hardly backpedal when the horrid truth was revealed!

(still laughing)m

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Hostly Mobcap ON

[(blows accumulated dust off of thread and brings it up from the MW basement)

We knew we'd need this thread again, so we have saved it, Lo! these many months...

Hostly Mobcap OFF

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

And thank you for saving/resurrecting it. I've just read it entirely.

It's surprising the various ways that people describe a sound. Some say that continental boychoirs are "hooty" or "fruity." I would never describe them that way, but rather more brilliant. Some English choirs might be hooty, if their tone is strongly in the Victorian style. I have a multi-disc album of Christmas carols sung by various cathedral choirs, dating from the 1970s I think. The tone of the Litchfield Cathedral choir was conspicuously hooty at that time (under Greening's direction). I can't say I liked that sound very much, although I do admire the "English" sound in general, which IMHO reached the peak of perfection at King's under Willcocks. Their tone has been brighter and less distinctive ever since.

Acoustics can make a great difference, too. Out in the nave of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, when I visited in the early 1970s, the treble tone sounded very round and fluty. Then I heard an evensong sitting in the choir stalls. They sounded completely different up close, much brighter.

No, Terry's choir at Westminster Cathedral was not particularly distinctive in its tone. His great pioneering contribution was in the area of repertoire, bringing back literally reams of Tudor and other Renaissance Latin music that England had not heard for centuries. And in order to do so, he developed the choristers' sight reading to a degree that amazed the world. It is reported that they could (although it is not to say that they often actually did) sight-read a polyphonic mass in service with the perfection of a professional performance.

It is incorrect as well as condescending to accuse boys (or girls) of being inherently incapable of whatever required standard because they can't read music well. If they are well taught and expected to do so, they can and do. One's raw intelligence is at its peak at this age. So is one's ear. Because of this, they are also capable of learning quickly by rote. Hence it is a temptation when pressed for time (and when isn't a choir pressed for time?) to rely on this ability more-or-less to the neglect of reading; but this is a crutch that disserves everyone in the long run, and a reflexion on their training rather than their native capacities.

The brilliance in the tone of the Westminster trebles came under George Malcolm in the 1940s and 1950s. George Guest at St. John's, Cambridge, is probably better known for introducing the continental sound, but Malcolm was there first, and to a greater extreme. (This choir has had a remarkable history of achievement considering that it is only about 100 years old.)

Malcolm probably believed that his tone was more appropriate for Renaissance music. Probably we can never know the truth, but some scholarly opinion holds that the "English" round tone dates essentially from the Victorian era, with choirs in Byrd's time sounding more like those on the continent do now. Other people suggest that there was a national difference in tone even then, and it was reflected in differences in style between Byrd's and Palestrina's choral writing-- Byrd's being more dissonant to provide a color that was less telling in the tone itself.

The tone of the choirs of the Sistine Chapel and of Montserrat in Spain are remarkably operatic and full of a rather wide vibrato. It's hard for me to believe from the sound of a Montserrat recording that I am hearing boys at all.

Well, vive la difference! I regret a little that the "English" sound has seemed to be in such disfavor that it is now hard to find. On the other hand, I must admit that the Vienna Choirboys and some German choirs do seem to produce boy soloists who sing circles around most English head choristers in the suppleness, assurance and expressiveness that they bring to difficult passagework like the arias of Bach or Mozart. In this sense, perhaps the underlying vocal training is on a sounder basis.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I may have overlooked something in the article, but I have methodological questions regarding the 130 listeners.

In the early 1990s, Barry Rose would mention an early test in which individual girls and boys sang behind a screen, and cathedral organists proved mostly unable to tell which were which,
but their wives could tell.

Some ten years later, he has moderated his earlier claim that there is really no difference.
Choir trainers report a difference in the "oo" vowel, which boys can produce easily but girls have a decided tendency to sing "ew". They can't explain this but suspect that it is ultimately anatomical.

There are also temperamental differences. People report that girls' choirs' performance is more consistent and predictable from day to day, whereas boys might sound thrilling and ethereal one day and relatively excruciating the next.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Choir trainers report a difference in the "oo" vowel, which boys can produce easily but girls have a decided tendency to sing "ew".

An interesting distinction which is certainly noticeable in the boys' and girls' choirs at my own church. The "ew" continues into the girls who are really women.

A very well known southern England cathedral girls choir has a distinct, persistent and rather irritating tendency to lisp - "Beatuth, beatuth vir" as I remember them singing once.

Posted by Pax Britannica (# 1876) on :

Interesting and apposite, Al and PreC. The discussion is continued on the sleeve notes of the recent series of CDs The Better Land.

San Paolo Maggiore seems to have much more of an edge to the tone these days than in the past, and the Victoria Street Gasworks (at least under O'Donnell) was/is extremely Italian. We are wondering if the San P tone will be imported to our little chapel on Fifth Avenue when John Scott arrives. Certainly the musicality, and supreme self-confidence, of the little kiddies in both these great London choirs is awesome: it makes one ask - why is this just an Anglo phenomenon? Where are the choirs in France, Italy etc?

Posted by Deon (# 609) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do you think you would get men singing if they had not first sung as boys? Most if not all the men in my church choir first sang as trebles.
That is a great big myth invented by the raincoat brigade to maintain the object of their fantasies. In the last Cathedral choir I was involved with, ony two of the men had been boy choristers.

Well, Fiddleback, you must have been part of something of a rarity.

I have been directing church choirs for the last thirty-two years. In all that time, I have had only one man join the choir who was not a boy chorister - and he didn't last more than a few weeks.

The entire present men's complement (11) of St Michael's Choir sang as boys - and all but two in Anglican Choirs. (One of the others was at Westminster Cathedral; and one Dutch Reformed.)

It is extremely difficult to attract adult male singers for a host of reasons; the commitment on Sundays being the prime one. It's alright for you lot, given your filthy weather; here, we have to compete against the joys of sunshine, beaches, vineyards and mountains. Male adult singers join the Opera Chorus, which is btw stupendous in Cape Town. and keep their sundays for themselves.

It's the men who were "hooked" as kids who stay on, and on, and on ....

Cheers

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Deon:
It's alright for you lot, given your filthy weather; here, we have to compete against the joys of sunshine, beaches, vineyards and mountains. [/QB]

Indeed so. Deon is entirely correct, but he also neglected to mention that most Cape Town churches look like warehouses. [Snigger]

Posted by Deon (# 609) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey:

quote:
Originally posted by Deon:
It's alright for you lot, given your filthy weather; here, we have to compete against the joys of sunshine, beaches, vineyards and mountains.
Indeed so. Deon is entirely correct, but he also neglected to mention that most Cape Town churches look like warehouses. [/QB]

(Edith Evans doing Lady Bracknell) : " A WAREhouse?????"

This www.stmichael.co.za is a warehouse????

[Mad]

Cheers

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Thanks, Deon. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work on my computer, but I have seen photos of your your beautiful church, and I was sorely tempted to rush to its defense.

When I someday am able to visit South Africa, I shall certainly make Mass attendance at St. Michael's a top priority. It is my hope that when that day comes, you are still there as o.-c. so that I can be assured of liturgical music of the highest standards offered in a church that, thanks be to God, looks like a church.

Greta

Posted by Deon (# 609) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Thanks, Deon. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work on my computer, but I have seen photos of your your beautiful church, and I was sorely tempted to rush to its defense.

Sorry. Try this:

http://stmichael.org.za/

Cheers

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :

I apologise Deon. It looks like a barn - but, perhaps, the 'handsomest barn in South Africa'. Certainly something to rival the sunny beaches, vineyards and floral wildernesses of the Cape.

Nevertheless, as with most pictures of SA, it is the exception which is, so wonderfully South African.

Although to be fair, the place where I got married is quite attractive.

Posted by Deon (# 609) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey:
Although to be fair, the place where I got married is quite attractive.

Yes, indeed! A most lovely cathedral. To bring it back to topic, it used to have a superb choir of men and boys; but the inevitable "modernization" of liturgy put paid to that.

Hope the music was half decent when you got married!

Cheers

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :

It was! The missus (who used to sing at St. Martin's in the Veld, JHB) saw to that.

(however as I understand that my wife was never a boy this could be seen to be rather off topic).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0