nachthorn

Don't know the instrument at all, but how on earth did they squeeze five divisions and 65 stops into such a small space?! Must be a nightmare to tune...

For years there has been a long standing comment from comedians that you will lose your car wheels if you park in Liverpool, but I am sure that this is no different to anywhere else ! Colin Richell.

The subject came up in passing... For what it's worth, I've found him to be keen on choral music, especially as a means of getting children more involved. I think he's just not keen on the introspective little choir clubs that linger on in some churches, the ones that are more interested in wearing cassocks than singing in tune. Can't fault him there. He was a chorister as a child, I believe.

On the Sunday, Andrew played the whole of Franck's third Choral after evensong and the vergers were quite diligent in ensuring that there was no interruption. Indeed, at least one was sitting in the quire and listening. I'm sorry you had that experience on the Saturday, but I shot up to the loft after the vestry prayer and didn't notice. At least you weren't bodily carried from the building

Not directly, yet, but I don't know how seriously they might take 'online chatter', particularly as the attitude is hardly open and enquiring to begin with. Some elements, I believe, were informally passed on to someone at the cathedral, but possibly not the whole discussion.

Glad I didn't take you up on the bet...

Two 'outsiders' - 1. St. Martin, Salisbury - gentle acoustic, much favoured for chamber music. Frequently used by London groups to record, with a direct train to Salisbury. Hill organ, but can't remember if it has a solo reed. 2. St. Alban, Highgate, Birmingham - J.L. Pearson church with an amazing large acoustic, used to be used frequently by the BBC for early choral stuff but the neighbourhood went downhill and the BBC stopped calling. Now much improved. 3 manual Rushworth with a heroic solo Tromba/Tuba. Both have Sunday morning services, but nothing in the evening except on the odd occasion.

I'm 6'5 tall but hope I don't look like a mugger. I recently had a fascinating conversation with someone who has good connections with St. Paul's, and I understand that one needs to 'look the part' to gain access the quire. Casual clothes, rucksack etc. will not get you in. Suit and tie probably will. The thing is, if I'm in London, it's usually on a day off, for the whole day, using public transport and a lot of walking, so I don't tend to don suit and waistcoat for the occasion. Rather than wear completely inappropriate clothes, St. Paul's are just going to have to do without me in the future In this case I don't suppose either the bouncer/verger or I will lose any sleep over this, but at least my conscience is clear... (In complete contrast, I spent a happy weekend at Salisbury with my choir, and the vergers and clergy there couldn't have been more friendly or helpful. Still, even then, another board member who came to Salisbury for evensong on Saturday was rather unwillingly 'moved on' after evensong before we had a chance to meet. Perhaps cathedrals just haven't come to terms with their dual status as place of worship and tourist attraction yet.)

On Thursday I visited St. Paul's Cathedral (London) for evensong. It wasn't the first time I'd been, nor was it the first time I'd been refused a seat in the quire. Why? "It's closed.... I mean it's full... er, just no" was the reply. In fact I've never been allowed to sit in the quire for evensong at St. Paul's, even though I've seen others being let in. This time was no different to the others - a strange experience of sitting under the dome, watching a group of people in the middle distance singing evensong, while I pretended to be part of the same congregation, and failed. It's not just a distance thing - it's partly sitting in a different part of the building, and partly that you can't really hear anything clearly unless put through the PA. Anyway, afterwards - determined to at least see what the quire and organ cases looked like from close enough to see them in focus - I made my way around the nave altar and up the steps towards the quire rail. I hadn't even reached the top before someone shouted 'Move down from there now!'. I looked for riot police, but all I saw was a verger-type standing in the north aisle glaring at me, briefly distracted from the task of schmoozing with people leaving the quire by the aisle gate. I meekly walked off, and minutes later was herded at speed from the building by a beating party of guides and vergers. Now, I've never been shouted at by a verger anywhere, let alone in a building as large and resonant as St. Paul's, and the fact remains that I don't know why, given that there were still people in front of me in the quire itself, standing around and chatting. Nor do I understand why I've never been allowed to sit in the quire - is there a secret password or handshake? But the biggest question I have is: why the attitude? In one of the most iconic places of worship in the country, why behave in such an unfriendly, dismissive, un-Christian way? Southwark is as intimate and friendly as a parish church, Westminster Cathedral is open to all without question, and even somewhere as posh as the Abbey greets evensong worshippers with courtesy and friendliness, and I've always been able to sit in the quire there. But at St. Paul's it seems to be too much to ask for a service sheet, let alone the chance to sit within half a mile of the choir, clergy and the more favoured congregation. I like the building, the organ and choir are very good, and over the years they've turned out a good number of consistently excellent discs on Hyperion which I'm proud to own and listen to regularly. But set foot in that building again - no chance. I've not been that angry for a long time.

It's late, I'm tired, and it's probably not the best time to be posting on here - so forgive me if I sound blunt, but I think we're still missing the point. We're a group of intelligent, sensitive people (on the whole ) who are far too used to apologising for our non-mainstream musical predilections at every turn. I know - I've been doing it since I was eleven. In this case, it's made this discussion far too considered. The question is largely separate from those considering the use of BCP versus CW, the separation versus the combination of musical styles, and the pastoral implications of active versus passive participation, which are important questions in their own right. Put simply, if the music is worth doing, it's worth supporting properly. If it isn't worth doing, why are we still doing it at all? If we are now in the business of supplying people with their 'musical kicks' instead (sorry Vox!) then we're guilty of delaying the 'progress' of the Church. Time to hang up the slightly tatty looking diploma hood, lock the console for the last time and hand the church keys back, as we're surely meant to be replaced by a CD of hardcore house anthems. Which is it? I'm not, and never have, argued that every church should use traditional music. I just think that those who DO want to use traditional music should be able to if they want. Why not support those that do? My last post on this subject, I think - I have no desire to wind up the entire board!

Well, I'm rather sorry that this one got sidetracked and burnt out so quickly. It was, as I said, just a theoretical discussion, but I would be happy to hear from anyone who'd like to discuss this further - PM me for my email address. From my own perspective, I know of so many people, young and old, musical and non-musical, who find the 'tradition' of 'classical' choral and organ music so life-enriching and inspiring in worship that it would be a terrible shame to lose it. Nonetheless, as it a tradition that demands so much of those who bring it alive, it is so easily damaged and lost in a short space of time. Purely for those who choose to be part of it, and without any intended slight on those who don't, I think it deserves better support and organisation than is currently available, and I can understand why those who have been fighting something of a losing battle can feel jaded and fatalistic - perhaps this is exactly why something more is needed. Duncan Courts.

This is in danger of disappearing down the same plughole as all other debates which wind up as 'traditional' versus 'contemporary'. The original question posed was whether those churches and individuals who choose to serve God and/or his churches through 'traditional' music would be better served through forming a new association to support these endeavours, as I suggested that the existing organisations don't do enough. Tony - 'RSCM' does include 'Church Music' in the title, which could therefore be any church music, yes, but taking that approach, 'CCM' - meaning Contemporary Christian Music - should include any music written by Christians today, but it doesn't - it's a specific exclusive category of music, regardless of the title.

Well put, MM, but not at all what I was driving at. I was opening up a discussion on the idea of an association to represent and support those of us already involved in 'traditional church music'. I don't doubt that some consider it to be 'niche' in comparison to wide, bland, populist categories, but plenty of niches have their associations, journals and plenty of happy enthusiasts. I was pointing out the juxtaposition between the rich history of such music (albeit not a simple and pretty history, as you point out) and the reluctance to treat it on its own merits, rather than lumping it in with John 'L' Bell, Graham Kendrick and Gospel choirs. Anyway, tell the boys choir I was rehearsing on Friday night that they are 'niche' and they would just look at you blankly - they wouldn't care, and neither should we. Heckelphone - that's not my experience, but every situation is different and we may have to agree to disagree on the details. I think that any representative association would be able to support both approaches, though.

Some interesting points already. I think I need to make it clearer that, although I'm not averse to getting stuck into these sorts of things, I'm not trying to sell a manifesto for a new association, rather canvassing opinion only. Links with other organisations - why not? Focus - I was aiming my initial suggestion at everyone, churches and individuals, who have an interest in traditional music in worship. I was absolutely not suggesting a 'preservation of anciente musik' society, nor a cathedral choir fan club. I was specifically thinking of an open, forward-looking, supportive, educational kind of organisation. No blazers with brass buttons, no elitism, no obsessions with academic dress. drd - your point about the fate of choirs in individual churches being at the mercy of changing incumbents and musicians is exactly my point - most churches go it alone and have to fight or lose their own corner, and some sort of association can give support in numbers, provide/coordinate choir director training, improve and broaden repertoire knowledge, assist with musician recruitment etc. Heckel - you're obviously thinking along the same lines, but I wasn't thinking specifically about boys-only choirs. Boys only, girls only, mixed - all good. Liked the David Jenkins quote, except the bit about 'tradition' being a verb. To tradition? Church providing musical training - the C of E appointed the RSCM to be their music agency twenty years ago. The results speak for themselves. I was using 'traditional' in the context of the English choral tradition. Jonathan Dove - yes, when writing for such forces. Messiaen - yes, as his choral and organ music is used extensively by English choral foundations. If we avoid the word 'traditional', as it's clearly compromised by association, what else can we use? Malcolm - fair point. How could such an association avoid the ego problem, and would you be more in favour if the problem was overcome?

This board has hosted some fascinating recent discussions touching on the nature of music in worship, and in particular the juxtaposition of 'excellence' versus 'relevance', not exactly a new topic but one that is painfully real for church musicians. While reading these, I've been reconsidering some thoughts which have been rattling around in my head for some years now. (All opinions are my own - I don't pretend to represent anyone else!) I believe that: 1. The English choral tradition is one of the cultural wonders of the world, and a powerful tool for evangelism. In saying this, I'm considering the tradition to be a living breathing artistic pursuit stemming from the earliest English church music to the present day and into the future, as heard in cathedrals, parish churches, chapels and beyond, and including organ music played in church services. The King's College Cambridge Nine Lessons broadcast has an annual audience of 'millions', and the weekly Choral Evensong broadcast is the longest running BBC outside broadcast. One of the few areas of growth in the Church of England is in cathedral attendance, attributed to 'the building and the music'. 2. There is no longer a single organisation that represents and supports all of those involved in the English choral tradition. There are numerous organisations that provide some support - the RCO and IAO support organists, but take no particular stance on church music the FCM provides support to cathedral choral foundations, but not parish churches etc. the ISM provides support to professional musicians in terms of employment, tax, law, contracts, etc. - and there are many local associations (RSCM and IAO affiliated) who do good work in particular areas, and there are numerous companies ranging from publishers and record labels to organ builders who are involved in the tradition, almost always in a positive way. This leaves, of course, the RSCM and the Guild of Church Musicians. Both of these organisations were founded to support and represent the English choral tradition, but while I don't wish to criticise either in broader terms, I would argue that they no longer provide the universal and lively support that our tradition needs and deserves. The RSCM widened its remit to include all churches and all styles of music many years ago, and while it still provides some good services for those involved in the English choral tradition, such as the Voice for Life scheme, traditional music is now represented as just one of many styles to be chosen from or rejected at will. I have lost count of the number of church musicians who have said that the RSCM offers them little or nothing any more, and it would appear that their membership, and probably their finances, are in decline. By trying to be all things to all people (see iPod masses, folk music, Christian rock bands etc.), they have (in my opinion) rejected the promotion of the choral tradition and is content to manage its rather graceless decline. The GCM provide an important service in running the Archbishops' certificates and FGCM exams. The list of names associated with the Guild encompasses most of the great and the good. Unfortunately, it is hard to see what they provide beyond the qualifications - their website lists just two events for the next year, one associated with the ACertPW certificate and the other is their AGM. I let my membership lapse some years ago through lack of interest, and if I know anyone who is a member, they never mention it. So my question is, do we need a new organisation to represent our tradition? My own answer is 'Yes' - I think we need an association that promotes and discusses traditional music exclusively. Other musical styles are quite capable of looking after themselves. Communication is now ridiculously easy - we can share and send text, documents, photos and videos in seconds, and this forum shows how useful discussion boards can be and points to the way forward. As real world church music involves a great deal of sharing and collaboration, an association that represents the needs of its members should help those members to do just that - a head office is no longer necessary. If a particular member, or group of people, want to carry out a particular project, such an association can provide both the support and the means to share their findings with other members and invite others to contribute. I think the benefits of such an association would be manifest, especially as it evolves over time, and the message it would give out - that traditional church music is a living and evolving tradition, not a museum piece perpetuated by dinosaurs - would be very valuable. Discuss!

Vox, amongst some good competition, I think that this is the best paragraph from one of the most insightful and meaningful posts ever written on this board. Thank you. What worries me is that I am also a dinosaur, aged 29. I have a number of friends of a similar age who are dinosaurs. Last night I was rehearsing the boys at my current church, and while some are just enjoying the singing, some of them really do 'get it' - they too are dinosaurs, aged ten or eleven. When will the Church put us right?

Thanks for posting this - very useful, and I guess it only hints at the many hours M. Latry spent on this. I know it's been discussed before without conclusion, but does anyone know of a similar list of corrections for the Pieces en style libre?

Thanks - a very interesting list. Might have to get my wallet...

I did have a passing interest in this book/CD set, but neither Delphian nor the Edinburgh association see fit to elaborate on the contents, beyond giving one list of instruments and another of players. There are also three different prices floating around - Delphian are advertising it for either £49.99 or £54.99 (both inc. P&P) depending on which bit of their website you look at. For this price, I think they could offer more information to tempt potential customers.

:angry: Much I respect the job of the outside broadcast engineers, I think that some of the Choral Evensong broadcasts have sounded less than ideal. The same goes for the King's Nine Lessons broadcasts - last year's gave that wonderful chapel the acoustic properties of a public convenience... I think Gloucester might be a difficult organ/building to record, in any case. I have discs from Gloucester on five different labels, but only those by Hyperion and Signum capture the true sound as heard in the building itself, to my ears at least.

My copy of the Oxford book has 'Sheep may safely graze', and a note at the front says that Handel's Largo is in the Wedding Music for Manuals edition. I've happily used the Oxford book for eight years, in conjunction with a couple of similar Novello volumes to fill any gaps (I acquired these second-hand and suspect they're out of print now). Don't your wedding couples like the Dupré Op.7 G minor then?

Many thanks to those who replied by PM. Copies sourced!

Does anyone have access to copies of OR 1989 (specifically March and May)? I've tried various local sources without luck. If you do, could you PM me? I'd be very grateful. NH

One of the things that makes or breaks Anglican chant for me is whether or not speech rhythm is used. The formulaic, lumpen approach used by so many choirs and congregations - speech rhythm until the first barline, hesitate on the last syllable, then sing the remaining syllables in crotchets (1st and 3rd quarters) or minim, minim, crotchet crotchet minim (2nd and 4th) - ruins any possibility of words being brought alive, and therefore the whole purpose of chant. That said, I have no idea whether this defect is caused by the inexperience or underconfidence of many singers, the pointing notation, the way the accompaniment is done, or sheer force of unthinking habit. Another, entirely personal, opinion is that if a particular congregation doesn't sing hymns confidently, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from congregational psalm chanting. Some of the most excruciating musical experiences in church have been accompanying congregational chant. This is particularly true if the congregation haven't been supplied with copies of the pointing, although few would know what to do with it in any case. I find the Parish Psalter very dull, and the Worcester Psalter fares little better. When I have the chance, I tend to point my own psalms - at least I don't moan about them then! I like the Priory Psalms of David CD series - lots of different styles to compare and contrast. Hyperion's Psalms from St. Paul's is OK, but naturally less varied and a little less lively generally.