Lincoln makes the Daily Mail

[makropulos]

This story has clearly been stoked up by some enraged traditionalists, but it's not often the Mail (of all papers) has a piece about cathedral music:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040040/Cathedral-choir-takes-woman-singer-900-years--traditionalist-group-brands-betrayal.html

[Chris Newman]

Salisbury did it many years ago. Some former girl choristers are well known professional singers now.

[makropulos]

Salisbury did it many years ago. Some former girl choristers are well known professional singers now.

Absolutely, Chris - nothing new about what Lincoln wants to do (and it sounds like a entirely excellent idea to me).

[Magnificat]

The point is that Lincoln will no longer have an all male choir.

It is a different situation to what happened at Salisbury where despite the first girls front line there is still an all male back row and they have maintained the choir of boys and men.

Whatever the merits of women altos people should not try to say that they are the same as men which is what always happens in any of these gender equality debates.

I have no objection to lady organists. Claire Innes - Hopkins is from a very talented St Albans family of musicians and will do a fine job as Lincoln's assistant organist I am sure.

VCC

[Miles Coverdale]

This story has clearly been stoked up by some enraged traditionalists, but it's not often the Mail (of all papers) has a piece about cathedral music:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040040/Cathedral-choir-takes-woman-singer-900-years--traditionalist-group-brands-betrayal.html

True, but it does give it the opportunity to portray women in a bad light, which is something it usually excels at. Perhaps it's deliberate that the paper's 'Femail' column, which seems to think that all women are celebrity-obsessed airheads, opens alongside the story.

Note how the CTCC puts up a female spokesperson for this story. Mind you, for an organisation that spouts so much misogynist nonsense, it has a surprising number of female members. Odd.

And to call it a 'betrayal' of composers' intentions is ridiculous. A fair amount of what we now consider to be 'standard' cathedral choir repertoire (e.g., Byrd's Mass for four voices) would almost certainly have been sung by a mixture of male and female, young and old - whoever was on hand. And it is by no means certain that the alto (or, to be more accurate, contratenor) parts written by Tudor and Jacobean composers were conceived for what we now think of as male altos (i.e. falsettists). A number of professional choirs (The Tallis Scholars and The Monteverdi Choir, to name only two) have had mixed alto lines very successfully for some time. At least the CTCC can rest assured that this monstrous regiment of women won't go down any further than the alto line (as it were).

[AscribeUntoTheLad]

I did enjoy this comment at the bottom:

'I don't care for cathedral choirs because whatever they sing the words are totally un-intelligible. They all seem to have gob-stoppers in their mouths & the musical variations are cringe-making cacophinies of discordance. Give me a good choir that actually sing the tunes in harmony, with words that can be understood.'

although not as much as I liked this one:
'I am sick of the politically correct, the femenists and all the other nutters wanting to take our traditions away. No wonder England is losing its identity.'

It's PC gorn mad!

[Miles Coverdale]

I see the piece has now been slightly re-written, and gives rather more information. As a side-note, I would point out that Gerhard Schmidt-Gaden's daughter has been seen bumping the alto line at Tölz for a while now, but that seems to have crept under the 'traditionalist' radar.

[Simon]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.

The "more flexibility" argument is flannel and irrelevant: no really good male choir needs "more flexibility" to do what it does. I've recently heard three, and they managed quite well, thank you, without female altos.

The idea that for the past 500 odd years, composers have ben writing English church music for mixed choirs is plain silly - as ridiculous, in fact, as Miles claims the previously mentioned "betrayal" to be. Evidence, Mr Coverdale? List me, for example, the many females mentioned in the choir lists from a few cathedrals in, say, C17.

Having said that, maybe best not to dwell too much on Lincoln: they've had enough problems.

[Miles Coverdale]

I did not say that 17th-century cathedral choirs had women in them - I know well enough that they did not. I did, however, question the idea that a piece such as Byrd's Mass for four voices was written for a cathedral choir, and that Byrd would therefore have had male altos in mind. Leaving aside the question of whether cathedral choirs had male (falsettist) altos in them at that time (as I've said, that is far from certain), no English cathedral choir would have been singing Latin Masses or motets from the Gradualia in the late 16th or early 17th centuries. The only venue for performance of such music was the home, where it would have been sung by singers both male and female, young and old(er). In that sense, Byrd's Masses are not 'church' music (for they would not have been sung in churches), they are religious music - not the same thing.

[AscribeUntoTheLad]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.


But some male altos sound very much like women. Some female altos sound like men. There isn't a 'male alto' sound and nor is there a 'female alto' sound. Obviously you wouldn't want a woman in your choir who sounded like a Rhinemaiden, but there are plenty of female altos who blend very nicely with countertenors.

[Simon]

But some male altos sound very much like women. Some female altos sound like men. There isn't a 'male alto' sound and nor is there a 'female alto' sound. Obviously you wouldn't want a woman in your choir who sounded like a Rhinemaiden, but there are plenty of female altos who blend very nicely with countertenors.

a Rhinemaiden... no... :yikes: :biggrin:

I agree that there are some women altos who would blend in with a male choir most of the time. I'm less sure that there are many men who sound like women altos.

Addendum: this story featured on Radio 4 6 o'clock news too.

[Simon]

I did not say that 17th-century cathedral choirs had women in them - I know well enough that they did not. I did, however, question the idea that a piece such as Byrd's Mass for four voices was written for a cathedral choir, and that Byrd would therefore have had male altos in mind. Leaving aside the question of whether cathedral choirs had male (falsettist) altos in them at that time (as I've said, that is far from certain), no English cathedral choir would have been singing Latin Masses or motets from the Gradualia in the late 16th or early 17th centuries. The only venue for performance of such music was the home, where it would have been sung by singers both male and female, young and old(er). In that sense, Byrd's Masses are not 'church' music (for they would not have been sung in churches), they are religious music - not the same thing.

OK, well, we're largely in agreement with this then. Although we can't know for sure. But modt would accept, I think, thast it is logical that the particular circumstances in relation to Catholic composers at various periods, and to the prescribed and preferred forms of "official" worship, would have precluded some music being performed in the all-male choirs of our cathedrals. And therefore it would have been sung, as you said, by any who were there and capable, in discreet venues.

But that of course doesn't mean that the composers hadn't the ideal of a male choir in mind - we can't know for sure. The Mass you mention - and Byrd's other Latin anthem texts - are little different in style, to my ears, from the more familiar canticles and anthems that we all know. But it's not a work we did in choir, so I'm happy to be convinced if there's a valid argument.

[Miles Coverdale]

OK, well, we're largely in agreement with this then. Although we can't know for sure. But most would accept, I think, that it is logical that the particular circumstances in relation to Catholic composers at various periods, and to the prescribed and preferred forms of "official" worship, would have precluded some music being performed in the all-male choirs of our cathedrals. And therefore it would have been sung, as you said, by any who were there and capable, in discreet venues.

You say we can't know for sure. In certain cases I think we can be pretty certain. Let's take a piece that many would consider the embodiment of what we now think of as English church music, Byrd's Ave verum - probably in the repertoire of every cathedral choir in this country. The idea that an English church or cathedral choir would have been singing a piece in Latin about the sacrament in post-Reformation England is, I think, a complete non-starter - I simply cannot imagine it happening. It is no coincidence that the music contained in such cathedral partbooks as survive from the period (e.g. the great collection at Durham) is, virtually without exception, in English. The great Latin works of the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries survive in sources compiled either for private, recreational use (the Paston sources, for example) or by collectors (Robert Dow, John Baldwin and others). Virtually no music in Latin which we would now consider 'church' music from the period 1550 to 1650 has come down to us via the church route. It is true that Elizabeth I was not entirely averse to music in Latin per se, but I think her tolerance only extended to settings of 'non-controversial' texts, such as ones from the Psalms.


But that of course doesn't mean that the composers hadn't the ideal of a male choir in mind - we can't know for sure. The Mass you mention - and Byrd's other Latin anthem texts - are little different in style, to my ears, from the more familiar canticles and anthems that we all know. But it's not a work we did in choir, so I'm happy to be convinced if there's a valid argument.

To suggest that Byrd might nevertheless have had the ideal of an all-male choir in mind for his Latin music is, I think, projecting a modern view (which has a particular agenda) onto both him and his music.

[Simon]

But you talk only of Byrd. A special case, I might argue.
What about Shepherd? Writing at and for Magdalen he very assuredly had trebles in mind!

(Excuse brevity & haste - got to shoot off out.)

[Miles Coverdale]

True enough, but Sheppard (c 1515-1558) was mainly a pre-Reformation composer, while Byrd (1539/40-1623) was a post-Reformation one, and so the question of who would have performed their Latin works is very different.

In any case (and to get back to the original point), the idea that it is a 'betrayal' to perform any composer's music using forces that are different from those s/he either experienced or envisaged is, in my view, just a flag of convenience that suits the desire of some to exclude women/girls from the performance of church music. I don't suppose that Mozart envisaged any of his piano works being performed on a Steinway grand, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hear them that way.

[Gabriel Jackson]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.

The "more flexibility" argument is flannel and irrelevant: no really good male choir needs "more flexibility" to do what it does. I've recently heard three, and they managed quite well, thank you, without female altos.


I agree, it is a ridiculous argument.

The idea that for the past 500 odd years, composers have been writing English church music for mixed choirs is plain silly
That is indeed a silly idea, but (as some seem to think) if mixed choirs shouldn't sing music written for all-male choirs, presumably all-male choirs shouldn't sing music written for mixed choirs. And the only thing we know about English cathedral choirs over the last 500 years is that all their members were male; though we know the number of boys and the number of men in some 16th century choirs, we don't know who sang what - whether the boys sang the top part only or the top two parts (it probably varied from establishment to establishment), whether the alto parts were sung by falsettists or not etc. And above all, we have no idea what they sounded like, so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed. As someone who has written a number of pieces for all-male choirs I am more than happy when those pieces are sung by differently-constituted groups.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.

Simon is quite right: all-male choirs have a distinct sound subtly different from (but not neccessarily "better" or "worse" than) mixed choirs.

I understood (perhaps mistakenly) the phrase "more flexibilty" to refer to the problems that all choirs have in getting an adequate number of good singers. For many, the options are either to settle for smaller choirs, or to maintain larger (all male) forces but to accommodate weaker singers, or to open membership to females.

For me, the real crux of the argument is that this sublime Music should be performed and performed well: "betrayal" of the composers arises only when the repertoire is neglected or poorly done. If female voices are the only means by which a choir can achieve this, then the somewhat intemperate hostility with which some have "greeted" this news seems completely misplaced.


Having said that, maybe best not to dwell too much on Lincoln: they've had enough problems.

Well, quite!

Best Wishes.

[DracoM]

<< so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed >>


Possibly true, GJ, but one would hazard that today's all-male ensembles might sound a tad closer to what these composers heard / therefore intended than mixed gender choirs, I am sure you will agree. Whether that makes the sound 'better' or 'worse' is hardly worth debating.

[Gabriel Jackson]

<< so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed >>


Possibly true, GJ, but one would hazard that today's all-male ensembles might sound a tad closer to what these composers heard / therefore intended than mixed gender choirs, I am sure you will agree. Whether that makes the sound 'better' or 'worse' is hardly worth debating.

I don't think it's possibly true, I think it's almost certainly true. Think about this scenario: a modern choir of 16 boys and 12 men sings a 5-part piece by, say, Taverner that's in TrMATB scoring. 16 boys sing the treble part, 4 falsettists sing the mean part, 4 tenors the alto part, 2 baritones the tenor part and 2 basses the bass part (this happens). Their similarly-constitued 16th century forbears perform the piece with 8 boys on the treble part, 8 boys on the mean part, the other three parts 4-men-to-a-part (and no falsettists). This is a very likely scenario. The piece will already sound very different. Then factor in the fact that, over the last 100 years, singing style/choral sonority has changed massively, so in all likelihood changed just as drastically over the preceding 400 years, and it is clear that what Taverner would have heard from his choir is radically different in all parameters from what a modern listener in Christ Church Cathedral will hear listening to Taverner.

Composers' intentions are complex, btw!

[ardcarp]

The recorded concert by The Sixteen from Worcester (and flagged up by Draco) included some 'all-male' repertory. It was very interesting that HC elicited two different types of soprano sounds for different pieces. (I guess some sops of each type are on the payroll, but each is capable of fitting in with the other.) There were some full and womanly sounds at times and some very pure head-voices at others. They are a fantastic group. My only slight reservation is that some of the big Russian Orthodox style pieces are best done by a huge choir...with a battery contra-basses!

[ardcarp]

of

[David Underdown]

Iestyn Davies's take on the appointment http://t.co/81HwCM15

[DracoM]

Absorbing response.

I can understand fully that a composer TODAY will write for all manner of ensembles, have all manner of parameters in his / her mind's ear.

The point I was obviously failing to make it that an all-male ensemble whatever the balance of numbers is going to make a different sound to a mixed gender ensemble, and that by and large, for a number of centuries, in terms of liturgical music, most composers would consciously or unconsciously have in their mind's ear an all-male ensemble and thus consciously or unconsciously written for such.

[ardcarp]

Iestyn is a bit hard on himself and male altos in general. A male alto and a female alto singing the same note (say E on the bottom of the treble stave) will sound different...the female will 'sound' lower and the male higher. For this reason in some repertory male altos just sound 'right', and This is the record of John (not Joan) is a good example. Conversely, I personally dislike male altos singing (for instance) Dichterliebe, which Paul Esswood did in pioneering (but IMO misguided) fashion many years ago. Horses for courses.

But underlying many of the posts is a fear that the all-male choir with its rather special chemistry might become a thing of the past. Who can say whether this fear is founded or not?

[Gabriel Jackson]

Absorbing response.

I can understand fully that a composer TODAY will write for all manner of ensembles, have all manner of parameters in his / her mind's ear.
Of course! My observation about composers' intentions was more general - in my experience people often speak rather dogmatically about "the composer's intentions" while not really understanding the complexity of what those intentions may be/are.


The point I was obviously failing to make it that an all-male ensemble whatever the balance of numbers is going to make a different sound to a mixed gender ensemble, and that by and large, for a number of centuries, in terms of liturgical music, most composers would consciously or unconsciously have in their mind's ear an all-male ensemble and thus consciously or unconsciously written for such.
An all-male ensemble produces a different sound from a mixed-gender one of course, but today's all-male choirs may well be no closer to what, say, 16th-century composers expected to hear than today's mixed-voice groups. While there are, in my view, many very good reasons for wanting to preserve the unique and special all-male tradition in this country, the idea that the sounds such choirs may produce today are the sounds English church music composers of the past would have expected to hear is not one of them.

[DracoM]

Agreed.

[Jamiewhall]

Whether or not you agree with female altos being allowed to join cathedral choirs is beside the point on this one. Lincoln Cathedral appointed without advertising the position and against the wishes of the rest of the back row, who have been told to keep quiet! And who is this marvellous new contralto? The girlfriend of a current Lincoln choral scholar and, apparently, a soprano!
So everything that the Lincoln spokesman (or woman!) said about her being the best for the job and how they're simply trying to produce the best possible music "to the glory of God" is a load of bull to cover up the fact that presumably somebody couldn't be arsed to go through the appointment process.

[DracoM]

Crikey.

Is there any way we can verify this rather 'different' slant on the story?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, Jamiewhall's post does offer a new and distinctly unsavoury aspect of this individual case. It needs further comment: anyone?

[bull-scheidt]

Yes, she is indeed a soprano and is going out with a current choral scholar. However, I think it's less that they didn't advertise (in fact, I did see an advert for the position at some point last year) and more that they were unable to fill it with a man.

[DracoM]

Does the Mail know / care about Jamiewhall's allegations?

[Simon]

Rumblings of discontent reached me a while ago. I can't confirm whether the post was advertised or not, as I'm unlikely to see such adverts.

The Lincoln choral establishment seems to have an unfortunate propensity for getting itself into unnecessary difficulties with some regularity. It's a shame.

[Jamiewhall]

I've since been informed that the alto vacancy was in fact for a choral scholar, not a lay clerk. All this fuss (much of it my own) over a one year appointment! Obviously my criticism of Lincoln was a huge overreaction. My sincere apologies to anyone who this may have upset.

[Magnificat]

Still begs the question as to how Lincoln will use the lady in her year there if she is indeed a soprano?

As far as Lincoln choir is concerned I am still hoping that one day the boys and men will once again broadcast CE rather than the combined forces ( including the new choral scholar).

VCC

[bull-scheidt]

I'm reliably informed she's going to be singing alto.

[makropulos]

Whether or not you agree with female altos being allowed to join cathedral choirs is beside the point on this one. Lincoln Cathedral appointed without advertising the position and against the wishes of the rest of the back row, who have been told to keep quiet! And who is this marvellous new contralto? The girlfriend of a current Lincoln choral scholar and, apparently, a soprano!
So everything that the Lincoln spokesman (or woman!) said about her being the best for the job and how they're simply trying to produce the best possible music "to the glory of God" is a load of bull to cover up the fact that presumably somebody couldn't be arsed to go through the appointment process.

I think you should think a lot more carefully before hurling accusations like this around. This kind of utterly ill-informed gossip is typical of the sort of nonsense muttered in corridors by some of the people who are employed by or otherwise participate in the choral activities of the Established Church. It's pretty disreputable - but I've no doubt that the "back row" are busy stoking the flames over a pint at every opportunity.

You do realize that it's completely untrue to suggest that there was no appointment process? But then facts clearly don't get in the way of a bit of mud-slinging.

[doversoul]

makropulos
Jamie did apologise as soon as he found out that he had been mis/ill-informed (#33). Let’s accept his apology for this time.

This thread has been most interesting and I hope it will resume the discussion of different voices and their effects. And English cathedral tradition.

Going back to Iestyn Davies's article posted by David Underdown (#22). I remember reading his interview some while ago (2009?) in which he said that he’d rather be thought as just a voice along with mezzo or tenor rather than bracketed as countertenor. He seems to have changed his thinking. Or is he saying the same thing? Sorry, this is a bit off the topic.

[makropulos]

makropulos
Jamie did apologise as soon as he found out that he had been mis/ill-informed (#33). Let’s accept his apology for this time.

This thread has been most interesting and I hope it will resume the discussion of different voices and their effects. And English cathedral tradition.

Going back to Iestyn Davies's article posted by David Underdown (#22). I remember reading his interview some while ago (2009?) in which he said that he’d rather be thought as just a voice along with mezzo or tenor rather than bracketed as countertenor. He seems to have changed his thinking. Or is he saying the same thing? Sorry, this is a bit off the topic.

Fair point, Doversoul, and I suppose it's reasonable to accept his apology. But it's always easy to say sorry afterwards - for a knee-jerk reaction involving blatantly defamatory accusations - a bit of circumspection would have been useful... This kind of gossip-driven dishonesty is distressing and offensive - and not just to the people it concerns directly (of whom I'm not one).

[Chris Newman]

Cases of the difficulty of filling the "adult" voices in cathedral choirs are legion. It is fine to advertise vacant positions but the main problem lies in prospective candidates finding other employment to make up a realistic income on which to survive when those other employers have to accept the peculiar working hours demanded by the cathedral choir. No cathedral is going to move CE to 6.30pm because they cannot get enough singers. This usually means altos, tenors and basses finding a part-time teaching post in a sympathetic school (or schools) on the doorstep of the cathedral. Both candidates and cathedral choirs have to be realistic in order to maintain the quantity of adult singers and the quality of the choir.

[french frank]

Going back to Iestyn Davies's article posted by David Underdown (#22). I remember reading his interview some while ago (2009?) in which he said that he’d rather be thought as just a voice along with mezzo or tenor rather than bracketed as countertenor. He seems to have changed his thinking. Or is he saying the same thing?I think his point was mainly about the few opportunities available for young countertenors to develop their voices.

You might get similar objections from actresses if a young man was given the part of Ophelia or Desdemona in a high profile new Shakespearean production.

[DracoM]

FWIW, I would suggest that jamiewhall's posting was not 'dishonest'. It seemed to me indeed 'knee-jerk', but based on what one might surmise was an honest reading of incompletely heard / gossip / hearsay. There is a big difference between that and conscious and fomenting 'spin', surely?

It also seemed to me that whatever the provenance, he was expressing a very real fear of many young singers / performers who find their place in their chosen world usurped by what they / their mates might call unfair substitution. He is surely right to suggest that if the Lincoln practice became widespread, young male altos / countertenors would become an extinct species within 30 years and more or less unviable as a career option. The performance of Early Music of various kinds would, IMHO, be irretrievably impoverished.

So while one might regret the haste, at least that haste has turned up a real lurking fear that DoMs / Ds and Cs nationwide might well be less choosy and looking elsewhere than for men to people bits of the back rows.

A door shuts, maybe never to open again?

[Gabriel Jackson]

So while one might regret the haste, at least that haste has turned up a real lurking fear that DoMs / Ds and Cs nationwide might well be less choosy and looking elsewhere than for men to people bits of the back rows.

A door shuts, maybe never to open again?

Whatever the ins and outs of this particular situation, there is a real problem with finding male altos who want to/can sing with cathedral choirs in many establishments.

[Jamiewhall]

To clarify: The content of my original message is true if my (I assume) reliable source is to be believed. I just don't think filling a scholar post in this way is unusual or that big a deal. Hence the back-step in the intensity of my complaint. I would not post any information based on idle gossip, though in this instance the lack of one tiny detail made a huge difference.

[DracoM]

Please explain that somewhat gnomic posting?!!