From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: re: good performances by choral groups
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:09:11 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <7SEP199223275404@eccles.caltech.edu>, inr@eccles.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) writes:
>>From: dmnhieu@riemann.math.purdue.edu (Duy-Minh NHIEU)
>>   If I were to study performances on choral music (ie: What constitute a good
>>choir/or choral group?), and I want to go by examples, what would you recommand?(I list here a list of some group that I know of, please add to it and/or correct me if I am wrong)
> 
>>     big groups:  The King's college choir
Enormously overrated in my opinion, *and* I can't stand boys voices or male
altos in a choir. They sing so often that they can easily get
lackadaisical---and the same goes for Christchurch or New College, Oxford.

>>                  The Cambridge singers (John Rutter)
>            little bit blah, I'd say

In some cases, yes, but they are the epitome of what the English Choral
Tradition *ought* to produce---clear tone, generally extremely accurate,
excellent blend and women on the top two lines.
> 
>>                  The Monteverdi choir (together with the English Baroque
>>                                       soloist, conducted by John Elliot 
>>                                       Gardiner)
>             they're more of a marvellous intermediate sized ensemble - 
Or a bunch of phone numbers who happen to be exerienced singers, depending on
how you look at it.
> 
>>                  The Robert Shaw choral
They don't get much exposure over here.
>>                  The Westminster choir.
Presumably you mean the Westminster *Cathedral* Choir (The Westminster Abbey
Choir is pretty rough). They are a model for other choirs with boys, so I
suppose if you must have boys, have the Westminster boys.
> 
>>    small groups:
> 
>>                  The kings' singers
Hmmm. Less of a choir, more of a vocal ensemble---but very good at it. (If you
can stand those hooting altos).
>  OK - my penn'orth  [now heavily edited]
And my 2p worth in reply
>    Renaissance groups :- Hilliard ensemble 
Again not really a choir, and that alto can be excrutiating, but they are
convincing, and they do perform very well.

>                          the 16 Harry Christophers 
Very good, but see the Monteverdi choir, the Tallis Scholars, the Taverner
Consort,...

> 
>                          the Tallis scholars 
Excellent---the same singers under a different conductor produce similar
results.

>                 Les Arts Florissants dir. William Christie 
I don't know much of their work, but what I do is excellent. (But then I have
their 10th anniversary sampler)

>  Larger ensembles - the Corydon singer dir. Matthew Best - I have their
>          recordings of Bruckner motets & of Vaughan Williams (inc. the       
>          serenade to music). 
Again not much experience, but the Corydon seem the best of a mixed bunch. 
The British symphony orchestras all have choruses which seem very good---but
it's not difficult for 150 dedicated amateurs to sound good.

I would add the BBC Singers, who probably don't record much, but do give good
performances of 20th century choral music, and the Tallis Chamber Choir, who
several companies use because they're good amateurs and so cheap. 

In general, I would guess that the best British choirs are the best in the
world---they're certainly better than Continental European choirs unless you
want a very wobbly sound, and probably on a par with the American choirs.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.