coronation ORDER OF SERVICE FOR THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III

[Phoneuma]

1 hour ago, Malcolm Riley said:

Watched the service without commentary. How refreshing! A veritable musical feast, though ALW's contribution was lacking a certain something (such as anything melodically memorable), not helped by a rather crass attempt at a modulation. The Abbey organ sounded magnificent, ditto the playing. 

I think you’re too kind - it lacked almost anything memorable. The rest of the music was excellent, rather taken with the Panufnik Sanctus. Roderick Williams outclassed Terfel by a mile (the latter was all over the place and sounded way past his best - I wouldn’t think singing with your arms folded is much help either). 

[Martin Cooke]

2 hours ago, Malcolm Riley said:

ALW's contribution was lacking a certain something (such as anything melodically memorable), not helped by a rather crass attempt at a modulation. 

Yes, it was shame, and a lost opportunity. I'm sure it would have been better to have stuck with tried and tested repertoire. I don't know, but Hadley 'My belovèd spake', or Harwood's 'O how glorious', or 'Wood 'On Thou, the central orb' would have kit the spot so much more. Even the descending triads at the intro set my nerves jangling! And, whilst I have tried to appreciate the works of Judith Weir, I couldn't, again, on this occasion, unfortunately. What a contrast with the Holst 'Jupiter' that followed immediately afterwards!

[S_L]

1 hour ago, Phoneuma said:

I think you’re too kind - it lacked almost anything memorable. The rest of the music was excellent, rather taken with the Panufnik Sanctus.

Of the music by contemporary composers I thought Roxana Panufnik's Sanctus to be the most inspired. The Debbie Wiseman 'Alleluyas' and Paul Mealor's 'Kyries' left me cold.

To use the word 'drivel' for the ALW anthem is too kind! I cannot understand why anyone would have asked him to set the words 'Make a joyful noise ......' 

All wonderfully performed though!!!

[Phoneuma]

14 minutes ago, S_L said:

Of the music by contemporary composers I thought Roxana Panufnik's Sanctus to be the most inspired. The Debbie Wiseman 'Alleluyas' and Paul Mealor's 'Kyries' left me cold.

To use the word 'drivel' for the ALW anthem is too kind! I cannot understand why anyone would have asked him to set the words 'Make a joyful noise ......' 

All wonderfully performed though!!!

Yes, the Panufnik was good, and I rather liked that Richard Strauss Fanfare, solid brass playing.

 

[Martin Cooke]

41 minutes ago, Phoneuma said:

Yes, the Panufnik was good, and I rather liked that Richard Strauss Fanfare, solid brass playing.

 

Yes, the Strauss was new to me but was a great choice. All of the music was really fantastic, with just the two exceptions in terms of new pieces. 'I was glad' was given a fabulous performance and I thought the Boyce was delightful too. The Abbey looked wonderful - we feel the need to visit asap. 

[Phoneuma]

I didn’t know the Boyce, wish I did, what a super piece

[DaveHarries]

4 hours ago, S_L said:

Of the music by contemporary composers I thought Roxana Panufnik's Sanctus to be the most inspired. The Debbie Wiseman 'Alleluyas' and Paul Mealor's 'Kyries' left me cold.

To use the word 'drivel' for the ALW anthem is too kind! I cannot understand why anyone would have asked him to set the words 'Make a joyful noise ......' 

All wonderfully performed though!!!

It was indeed a superb service, musically and religiously. I also enjoyed the Panufnik and hearing Veni Creator Spiritus (I think it was) sung in English, Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic before finishing in English was an interesting experience.

I mentioned to my parents, with whom I watched the service, that the ALW had come in for some criticism on here: they don't share in that criticism. Each to their own though.

Dave

[Andrew Butler]

Absolutely splendid. The Abbey music is in the safest of hands with AN. The weakest link for me was Bryn Terfel I'm afraid. With so much talent in the "back row" too..... 

Did anyone else notice Huw Edwards' two gaffs? (The two I noticed anyway - there may have been more!)

[Barry Oakley]

I would not disagree with any of the comments made so far, but on hearing the liturgy with a more informed mind than I had in 1953 I believe the liturgy needs reappraising. History has its place, but the liturgy is anachronistic and will be more so by the time William becomes our monarch.

 

[Colin Pykett]

5 hours ago, Barry Oakley said:

I would not disagree with any of the comments made so far, but on hearing the liturgy with a more informed mind than I had in 1953 I believe the liturgy needs reappraising. History has its place, but the liturgy is anachronistic and will be more so by the time William becomes our monarch.

But does it matter?  Prior to the pandemic I would have been inclined to agree, and much of what I saw then of our national way of life struck me as little more than trying to turn the place into some sort of gigantic heritage theme park.  But having witnessed the human and economic devastation wrought on the tourism industry in 2020 I've revised my views having seen (as we all have) its importance.  Much the same probably applies to other countries with enough history to make them tourist magnets.  I'm not necessarily convinced by the various figures bandied around by those with vested interests supporting one side of the argument or the other, but one version suggests that the monarchy costs each adult 62p per annum, equating perhaps to a total of around £35M - plus about £100M this year for the Coronation presumably.  This can be set against the billions which the tourism industry generates (again, only if the figures are to be believed).  I know you weren't focusing on the monarchy per se in your post, but if things like the Coronation liturgy start to get watered down to the level of CofE Common Worship, it could be the thin end of a wedge that could have unintended consequences.  Something of intrinsic beauty will disappear as well.

OK - so this forum is not about the monarchy or even the liturgy, but the point is that a similar situation applies to organs, though here I'm not so sure the financial arguments in its favour are as robust.  Let's look at some examples.  Over the last 20 years or so we've seen several large organs built or rebuilt with twin consoles, one tracker and the other electric and moveable.  The evidence I have suggests that the en fenetre ones can get relatively little use.  In one case I mounted the stairs to try it and was dismayed by the amount of dust it had collected, showing that not only was it not played but that nobody could even be bothered to clean up there.  (Actually, things got worse when I discovered that one division wasn't tracker at all but electric).  Why is this happening?  Anecdotes suggest that certain funding bodies insist on mechanical action, so the extra console is just shoved in presumably to get the money, though no doubt other reasons might be forthcoming.

Then there is that type of very old instrument which is brought back to life with things like a short compass swell, antique blowing equipment such as a restored water engine (which will never be used for eco reasons), an unequal temperament unsuited to its intended function, and/or a ridiculous pitch standard which means it cannot be used as part of an instrumental ensemble or even to accompany singers without the player having to transpose (which can of course make the temperament problem even worse).

That such things can happen to an instrument facing extinction in the round, as some forum members argue, seems nothing more than a triumph of antiquarianism over common sense.  It doesn't make the situation more comfortable to point out that similar things happen elsewhere, such as at Arnstadt where Wender's 'Bach organ' was carefully recreated in 1999, yet it sits resplendent on top of an electrified Steinmeyer discreetly hidden behind grilles and with a swish detached console replete with all the latest electronic gadgetry.  Guess which instrument gets the most use.

This sort of thing surely must matter for an instrument with an uncertain future?  There aren't too many tourists beating their way into our churches just to listen to the organs these days, or if there are, then I've obviously blinked and missed them.  It's not like the attraction of the monarchy because few of the tourists would even know or care what a pipe organ is.  So why are we wasting some of a dwindling pot of money on preserving museum pieces or building unsuitable instruments when the bigger question of sheer survival is looming ever closer?  Retention of historic or anachronistic aspects of the monarchy or liturgy makes sense because it is self-financing and turns a profit for the nation, but the same cannot be said of the organ world.