The Richard Marlow Double Descants as sung by the Trinity Choir (Oxbridge)

I don’t remember ever being critical of The superb Trinity College Choir at the University of Cambridge (Oxbridge), so this is a first for me.  And in this case I’m only being critical of their soprano section.  Or is it even that?

I’m really disagreeing with the Director of Music, Steven Grahl, and his way of doing descants with the soprano section, since he’s ultimately responsible for the descants.  Any other time, I think Steven does an excellent job, especially his discreet conducting style — he doesn’t make it all about himself as some conductors do and have in the past — and I like his interpretation of the canticle settings of Herbert Howells.

BUT:  What happened to the stellar Trinity Choir during their double descant on the final verse of the processional hymn in the Choral Evensong above? It was not sung to their usual standards.

My choral friend said it sounded “podunk.”  Yes, it did sound amateurish, and these are University Choral Scholars, and amateurish is not what one expects from them. You can hear what I’m talking about beginning at the final verse of the hymn starting at 42.10 in the video above.  It especially sounded bad from 42.36 on.

The Choir performs the Richard Marlow descants on a regular basis at Trinity, and this was one of them.  Update:  I was linking to a site for you to learn about Richard Marlow but like many things on the internet that are being ruined, that page now requires a subscription — so screw that! — so put his name in your search engine and see what you come up with.  Here’s one source, for the time being.

My experience with descants:

1. When you have an excellent soprano section as does The Trinity Choir, please don’t use solo voices for a descant.  Why would anyone do that?  A descant is not meant to be a solo for a piece.  Use the entire soprano section, as intended.  That’s what descants are written for.

2. See #1.  Please don’t use duets or two sopranos for double descants.  Use the entire soprano section divided up equally between the two descants.

3.  Please have the descant(s) float above the melody line and harmonies of the hymn it’s being sung with.

Why would descants be sung any other way by a credible, renowned choral ensemble of Choral Scholars which consistently performs with the highest standards of choral excellence?

As a brief aside:  I have heard descants sung with an excellent tenor section joining the soprano section in singing the descant.  The tenors sang the descant in their register, meaning an octave lower than the sopranos. That worked beautifully and makes a lot of sense when you think about it.  That was done by an Anglican parish in Manhattan.  On one verse or two of the hymn, it might be interesting to have just the tenors sing the descant (in their register of course) before both the tenors and sopranos join and sing the descant on the final verse.  This approach could work for any descants, not just the Marlow descants.

As for the Marlow descants at Trinity Chapel, they don’t do them as Richard Marlow intended they be done, I’ve learned.

The way the Marlow descants are supposed to be done is the following:

Richard wrote two harmonised descants for a hymn — they are called double descants — so that there would be two descants sung at separate times during the hymn.  For example, one descant sung on the second verse of a hymn and the other descant sung on the fourth verse.  On the last verse of the hymn both of the previously sung descants would be sung together. So you would have a total of three verses of the hymn with descants, which would of course make any hymn much more interesting.  But Trinity does not do that; they don’t follow Marlow’s wishes.  They never sing two descants during the hymn.

Hymns need all the help they can get these days because with hardly few exceptions, organists — regardless of where you go/look — are playing hymns “by the book” one verse after the other resulting in boring and uninteresting organ playing.  And that is what my choral friend means by “all hymns sound the same.”  In that context, he’s correct.  Until I understood what he meant, I fought him on the “all hymns sound the same” thinking.  I hear no imagination used in playing hymns these days regardless of whether it’s a cathedral or parish church.  I hear no High Church or elaborate interludes between verses, which gives the congregation a brief break and spices up the hymn.  There may be, may be a more elaborate intro to the hymn but that too is pretty rare.

I couldn’t play hymns the way I hear them played today as I would find it so utterly boring.  Even some parishes or collegiate chapels with sopranos/trebles capable of singing descants, the Choirmaster doesn’t use descants, or very rarely.

When I was Organist/Choirmaster in Anglican parishes, I made sure my hymn playing was unpredictable.  I used High Church interludes, fanfare introductions and brisk tempi, amongst other things.  And often members of the congregation would come to me after the Liturgy and say to me, “thank you for the joyful music this morning” which was very nice of them.  So they appreciated it.

But this is a very different time.  I guess the music these days is not supposed to be “joyful” and frankly I don’t hear much “joyful” music regardless of where I got.  The closest thing to that would be the Howells’s canticle settings or a French Organ Voluntary.

But the hymns?  BORING.  Dry as dust.  No creativity or imagination what-so-ever.  An amateur could play the hymns the way I hear professional organists/Organ Scholars play hymns these days.  “By the book.”  Well who wants to hear that?  One can hear that anywhere.  There’s nothing special about that, and how many other people say what my choral friend says, “All hymns sound the same?”

And when they sing the double descants on the final verse in Trinity Chapel — which is the only time one hears a descant — it sounds like a soloist (a single soprano) is singing one of the descants and another soloist is singing the other. The double descants sound very, very thin.  They sound like a duet between two soprano soloists rather than the full and lush soprano section.  Why is the soprano section not singing these descants?  I’ve read nothing about that being how Marlow wanted them to be sung.

I once asked about this in the comments at Trinity, under one of their Choral Evensong videos, but my comment went unanswered.

In this Evensong featured at the top of this page, the sopranos didn’t sound any better really at the end of the Magnificat of the Dyson canticles. They sounded thin and “off” in that as well, as if perhaps they were having a bad day.  Someone might say:  “Perhaps they were sight-reading.”  No, they were not sight-reading because the Dyson is part of their repertoire of canticle settings.

I’m a descant person, but not the way Trinity does descants where they always sound thin, rather than full and lush, so I’ve come to not get too excited when I see Steven Grahl, the Choirmaster, move to the podium to conduct the descant.

And I have a question about that too:  Since he doesn’t conduct the psalm/the Anglican Chant nor does he need to, why does he need to conduct the descant(s).  Do soprano soloists need to be conducted on a hymn?  I. Don’t. Think. So.*

I read this about Richard Marlow’s Double Descants:

“He performed similar feats in the descants he wrote, bringing to the medium a new style whereby two descants are used during the hymn and then performed together during the last verse. It was ingenious and highly effective.”

But again, unfortunately that’s not how Trinity does them, so they’re not adhering to Marlow’s wishes by only singing the two descants on the final verse and — with, again, what sounds like — soprano soloists, rather than all of the sopranos.  The soprano section on the Epistle side should sing one descant and the sopranos on the Gospel side should sing the other descant.

I know what the full soprano section sounds like because one hears them on the canticle settings and in the anthem. That sound is not what one hears on the descants at all.

Until I started watching Trinity’s liturgies, I’ve never heard descants sung by a single voice.

I don’t know who thinks that sound good with solo voices, although they do have a couple of people in the comments who could best be described as the Choir’s cultists, although one of those persons said nothing about the descants I’m writing about at that Choral Evensong. Any other time, he would have, so maybe he noticed this as well.  I did see some people in the Chapel looking around during the descants as if to say, “something sounds wrong; it doesn’t sound good here.”  No, it did not.  It was embarrassing.

And it didn’t sound good. I played it for my choral friend and he said, “That’s not their usual quality level.”

As I said, I’m a descant person, but the way Trinity does descants, I’d rather they not do them at all since/if they’re going to use solo voices on them.

From my choral experience — both Liturgical and Orchestra Chorus, descants were sung by the entire, soaring, soprano section:  The trebles of the Cathedral Choir, or the soprano section of the Choral Arts Society of Washington or the University of Maryland Chorus.  I don’t remember the San Francisco Symphony Chorus performing any pieces with a descant.

Below is how descants should sound:

Saint Paul’s Cathedral (Church of England/Anglican):

The combined Choirs of St Paul’s Cathedral (Church of England/Anglican) and Her Majesty’s Chapel Royal:  The descant begins at 2.25 in the video below.  Kate and William looked like they really enjoyed it (they also chose descants for all of the hymns in their wedding).  The Queen looked like she couldn’t be bothered.

Below:  Westminster Abbey (Church of England/Anglican):

The Choir of Her Majesty’s Chapel Royal & The Choir of Westminster Abbey:  The descant begins at 2.20 in the video below:

And here’s (below) a descant on the second verse of the Willcocks’ arrangement of the National Anthem “God Save The Queen” which was specifically written for the wedding of Charles and Diana in Saint Paul’s Anglican Cathedral (Church of England).   It’s a rarely used arrangement because of the large musical forces required to perform it.  In this performance it was a full orchestra, The Bach Choir, the State Trumpeters and the Cathedral Choir (Men and Boys) of Saint Paul’s Cathedral, and the Cathedral’s Great Organ.  Despite it being the first time this arrangement was heard, The Queen looks a bit sour, if not utterly bored.

Reading the comments under the video, most people seem to know nothing about this version.  They seem to think that this arrangement always existed when it was Sir David Willcocks who was commissioned to write this arrangement specifically for the Wedding of Charles and Diana.  One commenter wrote, “I can see why they went with this arrangement” implying it wasn’t new.  Don’t people research anything?

Stupid is in:  On Reddit someone was asking:  Is this arrangement not performed often because the Queen died?  (How do some people get through the day?)  Again, they know nothing about music or this very elaborate arrangement.  I’m not registered to comment on Reddit to tell this fool that the Willcocks’ arrangement is not performed often because of the large musical forces it requires to perform it.  It has nothing to do with the gender of the Head of State.  You just change the word Queen to King.  Doh.  The piece is best performed in a large Anglican Cathedral since it was composed for that.  It could be performed in a concert hall but it would not sound the same because of carpeting and “dry” acoustics.

Someone wrote in the comments, “One of the slowest versions I’ve heard…”  That was deliberate per the Willcocks’ arrangement, with a packed Cathedral and to accommodate the Cathedral acoustics.   The echo/reverberation time at St. Paul’s is 11-13 seconds.  If one looks closely in the Choir area, there is a chorister on the second row within camera view very precisely conducting (beating time).  You had the Cathedral Choir in the Quire area and the Bach Choir and Orchestra in another part of the Cathedral and the State Trumpeters in another part up on essentially the second story, and the organ console is up above the Quire area also on the second story.  Sir David Willcocks was chosen as Director of Music for the Royal Wedding.  He conducted the massed Choirs (which included the Bach Choir) and the Philharmonia Orchestra, Barry Rose conducted the St. Paul’s Cathedral Choir, and Colin Davis conducted the Royal Opera House Orchestra alongside Willcocks.

“God Save The Queen/King” is a far better National Anthem — much better written; it is in hymn style and much easier to sing — than the tacky “Stars Spangled Banner” (which I can’t stand) that the US has which celebrates war (“bombs bursting in air) and other rubbish.  It’s difficult to sing because it’s all over the musical scale, and out of the range of most people’s voices.

By the way, the US stole the British National Anthem to come up with that equally tacky piece they named “America” (text:  “My Country ‘Tis of Thee”).

Of course the Cathedral and the Abbey are a much larger space than Trinity Chapel, but nevertheless the descants should still sound full and lush in a Chapel and not thin, shrill and/or sung by one or two sopranos.  That’s not the way descants are done.

For those who know nothing about music or who don’t have an ear for music, or a musically-trained ear, they would likely hear absolutely nothing wrong with the “Trinity descants.”  And there’s nothing one can do about people like that.  It’s the same as one cannot fix stupid so don’t waste your time trying.  Someone did comment in their chat, “Beautiful descant.”  You thought that was beautiful, did you?  And where did you train?

So at Trinity, when may we hear three descants per hymn that the Marlow descants are used for?  (Not holding my breath).  I don’t think Richard would be too happy that his wishes are not being honoured especially at “his” Chapel where he founded The Trinity Choir.  Interestingly:  “He received letters from BBC Radio 3 Choral Evensong listeners congratulating him on the quality of the boys’ voices.”  They were not boys’ voices.  They were female sopranos.

The Oxbridge collegiate chapels have what’s called a “Leaver’s Evensong” which is where the graduating Choral Scholars choose the repertoire.  Trinity Chapel refuses to/does not broadcast the Leaver’s Evensong claiming that it’s a “personal and family occasion.”  (eye roll)  That seems outdated and a bit silly to me in this digital age.  Don’t the families go on YT and watch most or all of their liturgies from Trinity Chapel each week and see their son at the organ or their son or daughter in the Choir?  I should think so.  So how is this one any different than all the rest?  Just because the graduating choristers chose the repertoire?  Well what’s the big deal about that?  One of the cultists literally begged them last June to record the Leaver’s Evensong, but they refused.  Despite the “personal and family occasion” excuse, I don’t know what the big deal is about broadcasting it as they do all the others.  But the cultist, as expected, said he understood the reason they don’t.  (Well I don’t).  Being a cultist, he can’t speak one word of criticism or disagreement with any decisions they make about the Choir aspects.  He reminds me of the “maga” cultists.  It’s the same cult mindset.

Whereas, the last time I looked, The Queen’s College and New College (both at the University of Oxford) are broadcasting their Leaver’s Choral Evensong.

The same cultist of Trinity asked the Senior Organ Scholar what repertoire the Choral Scholars had chosen.  After the response, the cultist wrote gushingly about “the brilliant choices” of repertoire for the Leaver’s Evensong.  Brilliant?  Isn’t that a bit much to describe the choice of repertoire no matter what it is?  Then he wanted to know who wrote the “stunning” descant for the final hymn sung yesterday.  I thought:  Well I have to hear that!  So I listened to the descant expecting it to “wow” me — although I’m not easily “wow’ed” — and to me it was rather ordinary.  I certainly would not have called it “stunning.” I think this cultist uses words for which he does not know the meaning.  Why does he have to hype everything?  The descant that he called “stunning” still didn’t sound like all of the sopranos were singing it, but it didn’t sound quite as thin as the descants I’ve written about on this page.

UPDATED  6 June 2026

I agree with Gus Cox, the superb Senior Organ Scholar at Trinity College Chapel, where he wrote about this performance:  “Based.”  (Look it up if you don’t know what it means).

I enjoyed this performance of the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No. 1, performed by the Trinity College Music Society Orchestra and pianist Peter Ostrovsky at Trinity College Chapel, University of Cambridge in the UK.

The performance was conducted by Thomas Simpson the (equally superb) Junior Organ Scholar at Trinity Chapel.  He also plays the cello and he and Peter gave a cello/piano concert awhile back.

The performance took place in the College Chapel, which is part of the established Church of England/Anglican.

One thing I listen for in this concerto is Rachmaninov’s chromaticism and there’s one place in the winds in the second movement — I think it’s the Principal Clarinet part — where I listen for that, but I didn’t hear it in this performance either.  I don’t hear it in all performances of this piece no matter who is playing it, and Thomas didn’t have that part brought out.  Peter mostly brought out the chromaticism in the piano part.

Also on the programme was the Prokofiev Symphony No. 7.

Interestingly, Peter is also a tenor Choral Scholar in The Trinity Choir. 

I was watching one of their Choral Evensong performances the other day, and my choral friend made the comment about The Trinity Choir, “They have a perfect sound.”  Yes, they do.  They are my favourite.  When I have the time, I do watch a couple of the other Collegiate Chapel Choirs, but Trinity is where I go to first.  And no, I don’t comment (or rarely), in part, because they already know how good they are — or they should — but they never let on that they know how good they are, which is the sign of true artists.  And they don’t need me to write a “review” of every Choral Evensong they perform as some people do on there.  I’m still waiting for the Choir to perform Howells’s anthem, “I Love All Beauteous Things” but it appears I’ll have a long wait on that, even though it’s part of their repertoire.

I normally don’t care what people wear but I especially liked what Peter wore to play the Rachmaninov.  Just a plain shirt and pants.  And that’s all that was needed.  None of that stuffy tux and formal attire nonsense that the classical music tradition and their cultists are so rooted in.  From my own performing experience, of course I’m used to that so I usually just ignore it, but when I see someone like Peter, I find him refreshing and I’m glad that he didn’t care what anyone thought about him not wearing the traditional and terribly tired, cookie-cutter performance attire.

Thomas is getting quite the experience at conducting this term, with this performance and also with doing some conducting with The Trinity Choir.

Peter was trained the same way I was trained from observing his playing.  He plays without any needless theatrics, no profuse sweating getting his hair all wet, and no bouncing around on the piano bench the way many pianists in their 20s and 30s play these days to try to give the impression that what they’re playing is difficult.  One is supposed to make what they’re playing look easy to play, which Peter does.

My choral friend noticed that the piano placement was “out” or outside the Orchestra versus more inside the Orchestra the way it’s done usually in the EU, where the First Concertmaster is directly behind the pianist or slightly to the left of the pianist.  I said:  Oh they’re probably trying to copy the BBC which — for the BBC Proms — sticks the piano outside the Orchestra like a what-not, or at least that was the case the last time I saw a piano concerto performance during the Proms.  But upon reflection, they did have space problems being inside the free-standing Altar area of the Chapel (the free-standing altar had been removed for this performance) and with a large Orchestra, that was probably the only place to position the piano.  They do have the preferred Steinway & Sons Model D piano, commonly used in the EU.  The Model D is made in Hamburg, rather than in the New York factory.

Trinity College — one of 31 Colleges in the University of Cambridge and the wealthiest of all the Colleges — does not have a stand-alone School of Music.  Music is integrated in academia within the College.  From their website:  “The Music Tripos is designed for those interested in music as an academic discipline. Nonetheless, nearly all undergraduates reading music are keen and capable performers, and there are optional courses on instrumental or vocal performance in all three years.”  BTW, the Music building is next door to the Chapel.  That’s convenient for the musicians.  Trinity College is the largest College in Oxbridge.

I’m glad Peter chose the Rachmaninov First rather than Rachmaninov’s  Second or Third Concerto, because the First and Fourth are the least often performed of the Rachmaninov concerti, including the Paganini Rhapsody.

Of this performance Peter says:

“Though I have loved this concerto for a very long time, this was my first time performing it. I learnt the first movement two years ago, but the other two movements were learned in the two months leading up to the concert.”

“Rachmaninov was younger than I am now when he completed the original version of this concerto as a teenager. But he completely revised it in 1917, making it de facto his third, and perhaps most pianistically and harmonically subtle concerto. Though the main themes from the student version were retained, the revised version is otherwise a different work. The result was a unique collaboration between youth and experience, between naivety, energy and technical mastery. I suspect my own playing contributed more of the former two.”

Speaking of the University of Cambridge, I was watching an archive episode of Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life” the other night and Groucho asked one of the contestants where he learned his perfect English, was it at Cambridge or Oxford?  Interesting that he used Oxbridge as his example.  The guy said he learned his English in Brooklyn.  For those interested, “The “Queen’s English” (now the King’s English) and “Oxbridge English” are fundamentally the same and refer to the same prestige dialect, but they highlight different aspects of it. The Queen’s English focuses on the standard accent, while Oxbridge English focuses on the academic style and conventions of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

That’s the language the University of Maryland used when they made their “our decision is final” announcement. And they said that the University of Maryland Concert Choir would become the symphonic choral ensemble on campus. Although they don’t seem to do much — compared to the University of Maryland Chorus — and it’s a one credit course.

Did a meeting such as the following take place in the University of Maryland School of Music (College Park campus)?:

At an administrative meeting in the School of Music, the topic of disbanding the University Chorus finally came up.  The topic had been simmering privately for some time.  The University was never all that hot on the Maryland Chorus to begin with because it was not an all-student ensemble.  But they allowed Dr. Paul Traver, the Founder and Director, to do what he wanted to do considering he and the Chorus were bringing themselves, the School of Music and the University of Maryland such renowned and outstanding exposure, status and praise as a School of excellence, particularly with their frequent performances with the National Symphony Orchestra in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall.

Major Chorus Directors in the US, such as Margaret Hillis (Founder and Director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Chorus), were recommending the University of Maryland Chorus to world-renowned conductors (such as Claudio Abbado) for their upcoming performances in the Kennedy Center.  The University likely knew that they would have to wait to disband — oh excuse me, “liquidate” — the Chorus after Dr. Traver either died or retired since the Chorus was “his.”  He founded it.  After Traver had retired, and a new guy was Director of Choral Activities, the School of Music decided to rewrite history and accredit the new guy for the Choral programme being what it is today. That credit goes to Dr. Traver, in my opinion.  Why was the credit not given to him? What was up with that along with the “liquidating?”

So what were they waiting for to end The Maryland Chorus, as it had become known?  Unlike many University Choruses, the University of Maryland Chorus had become one of the finest Orchestra Choruses anywhere, having performed with many of the world’s major orchestras and conductors, and in major Concert Halls.  How many University Choruses can say that?

They had performed Beethoven’s Ninth at this point in time close to 40 or more times with major symphony orchestras. What University Chorus or Symphony/Orchestra Chorus can say that? 

The Maryland Chorus was the envy of some of the choristers in the Choral Arts Society of Washington who were jealous of the performance invitations that Maryland had received and continued to receive. Some in the Choral Arts Society thought they should have had those engagements. They wanted to perform with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam — which I can understand — but Maryland had those engagements.

But, the School of Music apparently didn’t want to use the word “disbanding” for ending the Chorus because that was too harsh-sounding.  But “Liquidated” would work because that’s a much prettier word and it’s a legal term for ending or disbanding the Chorus, without coming right out and saying that forthright.  And frankly, some people would not know what liquidated meant to begin with; but in this case liquidated meant disbanding. I think most people on the College Park campus knew that based on their testimonials that they disagreed with this decision.

Liquidated is a legal term:

“Liquidated means to convert non-liquid assets into cash, settle a debt, or legally dissolve a business or entity by selling off its property to pay off liabilities. The term applies across several different contexts, ranging from personal and corporate finance to everyday legal contracts.”

There are four types of liquidations but I think the one most applicable here is the corporate liquidation:

1. Corporate Liquidation (Business Wind-Down)

As in “Wind-Down” the Maryland Chorus.  Disband the Chorus.  End it.  And the Maryland Chorus was not a business any more so than any of the other choral ensembles in the School of Music.

“Liquidating” was a way of sanitising the disbanding of the Chorus.

“Liquidating” is a much prettier word than “disbanding.”  Did the University consult a PR firm before writing their announcement which, as I remember, had a very firm and final tone to it as in to say:  “We’re finally getting rid of the University Chorus — we’ve been wanting to do that for sometime but we were waiting for Paul Traver to retire — and our decision is final, so deal with it people!  We don’t care what you think about it.  The decision is ours” announcement?

“Liquidated” is a strange word to use (it’s very corporate) for a University Chorus because there was no money involved with the Chorus other than the salaried Faculty and Chorus Director, Dr. Paul Traver.  The choristers were not paid nor was the Chorus paid for their performances.  The University paid for the electricity for the rehearsal hall.  So where’s the “liquidation?”  I think it’s a fancy way of say, “We’re disbanding the Chorus, finally.”

Unless I’m missing something here, the University of Maryland Chorus did not cost the University anything, other than electricity for lighting for rehearsals and heating when needed.  The choristers bought their own vocal scores and the choristers paid for their own performance attire. Salaried Dr. Traver would be paid as a member of the Faculty whether he had the Maryland Chorus or not.

Of course, the School of Music has a budget and the Choral Department would be part of that and some of that would go to the University Chorus.  But for what? When, again, the choristers pay their own way.

So what am I missing here, if anything?

The buses rented to take the Chorus into the District for their Kennedy Center performances were paid for by the National Symphony Orchestra, I presume, and not the University of Maryland.

Who paid for the buses when the Chorus was performing with other orchestras in the Kennedy Center, such as the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam?

I keep asking: Where is the expense to the University that the School of Music would had to have a “liquidation” of the Chorus?

Probably not realistic, but this could have been done if need-be:  A cheaper alternative would have been for the Maryland Chorus to take Metrobus into the District.  That’s how I got to the campus from Foggy Bottom and then back into the District from rehearsals.   It was a pain and a long commute, which is why I waited until my last year living there to sing with the Chorus even though very kind Dr. Traver had welcomed me into the Chorus much earlier than that. I wrote to Dr. Traver enquiring about an audition. I told him I was piano accompanist for one of his Doctoral conducting students and he then welcomed into the Chorus without auditioning. 

When I sang with Maryland, I remember at one rehearsal running across the campus in snow to and from the rehearsal.  But I knew this would be the case when I auditioned with Maryland.

This was compared to the ease of getting to rehearsals for the Choral Arts Society.  For those, I walked out of my apartment on Pennsylvania Avenue and got on Metrobus and went into Georgetown and turned onto Wisconsin Avenue and took me right up Wisconsin Avenue to Mount Saint Albans (the Anglican/Episcopal parish) next door to the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Paul (also known as Washington National Cathedral), where the Choral Arts Society rehearsed. Bottom line: It was much easier to get to Choral Arts rehearsals.

As for this so-called “liquidation,” was it all public relations BS? I don’t know what that music critic was referring to unless he was referring to the “liquidation” language used by the University. 

The University of Maryland Chorus could not have been having financial problems because there were no finances involved. Unless, again, I am missing something here?  Maybe there were some legal documents involving the Chorus and their existence/founding that this is referring to, but other than that: On the face of it, the Chorus was essentially free and cost the University nothing.  Well, you can’t get any better than that!  Dr. Traver — a salaried Faculty member — was going to be paid whether there was a University Chorus or not. Faculty are paid a set salary regardless of what they do.

I know I’m repeating myself here and I deliberately do that in my articles because there are a lot of thick and dense people out there who can show up here and they can’t “get it.” They’re usually from the “stupid is in US.”

I get nice comments from time to time from choristers who were in Dr. Paul Traver’s superb University of Maryland Chorus, or the Maryland Chorus as they became known in later years on the College Park campus as well as around the District, Maryland and Virginia.

Unfortunately, ever since I wrote my tribute article to the University of Maryland Chorus, I’m not aware that I’ve received a comment from any current students or Faculty member on the College Park campus in the School of Music, and the Department of Choral Activities, which is why I asked somewhere in one of my articles: Is Dr. Traver’s name is ever mentioned these days or the name “University of Maryland Chorus?”  The current Director of Choral Activities mentioned “The Maryland Chorus” as part of his bio, but that’s it.

I didn’t know until recently that Dr. Traver was in a bad car accident which caused him to suffer an unspecified long illness before his death on his 80th birthday.

Dr. Traver was one of my choral mentors along with my High School Choral Music Director. She really sparked my interest in symphonic choral music when she played a couple of recording by Robert Shaw.  One recording was Shaw conducting the 200-voice Cleveland Orchestra Chorus performing various symphonic choral works. Listening to that was very inspiring to me and I remember ordering that recording so I could listen to it at home. Then, I heard a live performance of the National Symphony Orchestra and the University of Maryland Chorus at Wolf Trap — it was Beethoven’s Ninth — and, as usual, they gave a stellar performance.  It was then that I decided I wanted to sing with the University of Maryland Chorus and study with Dr. Traver, which I did after I graduated from the Conservatory.  Whenever the Maryland Chorus performed Beethoven’s Ninth, it was always memorable for me.

As for the Chorus, several unanswered questions about them remain for me.  And no one seems to know anything at all about the following or what The Washington Post music reviewer was referring to when he wrote:

Quote:

The Washington Post Music Reviewer, Joseph McLellan, wrote:

National Symphony Orchestra and University of Maryland Chorus

“…an excellent performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was presented to an overflow audience Saturday night at Wolf Trap. This excellence, however, was a last-minute development, and primary credit goes not to the National Symphony, which was the orchestra for the occasion, but to the University of Maryland Chorus, which came to the orchestra’s rescue. The Chorus, one of the best, celebrated its 20th anniversary and its 36th Beethoven Ninth by singing the final movement as well as I have ever heard it sung, live or on records.”
Source: National Symphony Orchestra and University of Maryland Chorus (Joseph McLellan, music critic)

End Quote

Since no one seems to know a thing about that and how the Maryland Chorus “came to the Orchestra’s rescue,” I can only speculate. Although my speculation doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like either the Choral Arts Society or the Oratorio Society of Washington was scheduled to perform with the NSO at Wolf Trap but something happened and they cancelled (that would never have happened), so the NSO called Dr. Traver and asked him if the University of Maryland Chorus could fill in for them.  Highly unlikely. Depending upon when the programme was printed, what Chorus was listed on the programme?

As for the “liquidation”/disbanding of The Maryland Chorus by the University, that didn’t go over well at all with a lot of people, especially on the campus. Why was that done? Many students (including non-music students) disagreed with ending the University Chorus.

One music reviewer wrote in passing about some of the choral ensembles in the Washington Metropolitan Area having financial problems. He specifically mentioned “The Maryland Chorus.” 

The thing is: All the Choruses were likely in the 501(c)3 nonprofit organisation category including Maryland, and the same for the Choral Arts Society and The Washington Chorus (previously the Oratorio Society).  As for Maryland, was this music critic referring to the so-called “liquidation” status per the University?  He didn’t say.

According to my research:

“Yes, university and collegiate Choruses typically operate as nonprofit entities. They usually fall under the parent university’s overarching \(501(c)(3)\).”

In my opinion, the University was rather extreme in how they ended the University Chorus, and they were very adamant about their decision. They announcement about it said their decision was final and that the name “University of Maryland Chorus” would be retired and never used again in order to honour the legacy of the Maryland Chorus and their accomplishments.  I get that, but why so extreme?  Why couldn’t the name “University of Maryland Chorus” be continued?  Many universities have a University Chorus, so for the University of Maryland to no longer have a University Chorus was/is also most unusual. Why didn’t they continue the name — since at this point here in 2026 it seems that the Maryland Chorus has been completely forgotten about anyway — and say that the new requirement for admission to the Chorus is that only students may audition for the Chorus?

But by the tone of their announcement to end the Chorus, I sensed that politics were involved.  I also don’t think that the University liked that the Chorus was a “town and gown” Chorus.

The University said the Chorus was being “liquidated”/ended because they had served their purpose.  I thought:  Well, the same can be said about the University.  The University has served its purpose, but I don’t see them “liquidating” the University and shutting that down.

Rhetorical Question:  Was there more to this, such as politics?  I suspect so, since pretty much anything I can think of has politics involved in it.

In hindsight, years later, I’m not convinced that the University was all that hot on the Maryland Chorus to begin with, or on Dr. Traver because it was not an all-student Chorus.  They allowed him to have auditioned choristers from the community because that’s how the Chorus was founded.

For those who don’t know: The Chorus was founded decades ago by Dr. Paul Traver. The National Symphony Orchestra asked Traver to form a Chorus for the NSO’s performance of Messiah. He did so and the performance was such a success that the Chorus decided to stay together, and they were known as the University of Maryland Chorus, which I assume is where they rehearsed when Traver started the Chorus.

Throughout the years, any chorister who was not a UMD student had to pay the University a small, one-time fee to sing with the Chorus.   It was something around $USD 25-50.00, as I recall. It wasn’t much.

The University seemed to allow Dr. Traver to do what he wanted.  Did the University always agree with what Dr. Traver was doing?

He started — what ultimately became — the renowned Maryland Händel Festival on the campus?  The Festival was where all of the oratorios of Händel were performed in the order in which Händel composed them.  The University of Maryland Chorus was the resident Chorus for the Festival and they were accompanied by the Smithsonian Chamber Players with Dr. Traver conducting.

I heard one of their performances one Sunday afternoon from the Maryland Händel Festival over one of the National Public Radio member stations.  It was a performance of Esther.  I enjoyed that, and it was good to hear the Chorus again.  At that point I was living in San Francisco. As I remember, the Maryland Chorus sounded smaller in that performance.  Maybe that was when they were starting to reduce their size?  I don’t know.

From AI:

“The Maryland Händel Festival fostered a reputation for scholarly yet artistic performance. The collaborations featured Baroque Music played on period-correct instruments or replicas, with the Smithsonian Chamber Players often collaborating with the University of Maryland Chorus.”

Why was the University of Maryland Chorus “liquidated?” 

One thing I noticed from the School of Music’s website was there was a picture of the Chorus with the Women of the Chorus in long blue dresses and — I forget what the Men were wearing, but probably — black tuxes. I do remember that they looked similar to the Choral Arts Society of Washington and their performance attire with the Women in blue dresses. 

In that image on their website, the Maryland Chorus looked much smaller and the choristers were standing in a semi-circle. I counted about 90 voices. That’s a major reduction from the days where I enjoyed their performances and where they were practically the official Chorus of the National Symphony Orchestra. In those days, they were known as the 150-voice University of Maryland Chorus.  The same was true for when I sang with them.

Was the size of the Chorus reduced by the University, or the Chorus Director after Dr. Traver’s retirement? 

Or — there’s something else to consider — were fewer choristers interested in auditioning with them because the Maryland Chorus had few (or no) invitations to perform with the NSO under Rostropovich and Slatkin?  Were fewer people interested in singing with them since they had lost that attraction of performing regularly with the NSO?  I sensed that both conductors preferred Norman Scribner’s Choral Arts Society of Washington because both conductors worked with Choral Arts first. I tend to think that’s sometimes how the way that works.

I talked with my former piano instructor after I had moved to San Francisco. Her son was in the Maryland Chorus. She told me that things had changed there since I left, and that each Orchestra Chorus was now having to do their own thing because of fewer symphonic choral works being programmed by the NSO.  And each Chorus was having to do their own thing and come up with their own season subscription series. 

Maryland had recently performed Walton’s Belshazzar’s Feast with the NSO, so I asked her about their review.  She said she enjoyed the performance, but she thought that The Washington Post music critic was “too nit-picky.”  She didn’t elaborate on that.  I remember asking her:  Was the Chorus split?  (Belshazzar’s Feast is for Double Chorus).  She said:  No, not visibly split.

In the case of the Choral Arts Society for their own subscription series, they rented the Kennedy Center Concert Hall for most or all of their performances and used — what Norman Scribner called — a “pick up” orchestra for those performances. The “pick up” orchestra consisted of members of the National Symphony Orchestra, which Choral Arts referred to on their programme as “the Choral Arts Orchestra,” as I remember.  They had to call the “pick up” orchestra by some name since the Choral Arts Society could not use the name “National Symphony Orchestra” because the NSO was not performing with the CASW Chorus in their official capacity, and it probably had to do with union rights and rules as well.

So, the above questions have remained in my mind for some time, and perhaps they are based in music politics.

Music politics can be very nasty and pretty intense.  I’ve read about the ugly politics involved in major symphony orchestras.

I know from my Conservatory experience which was marred by petty politics.  I hadn’t expected any of that.  I remember that I considered leaving the Conservatory where I trained and transferring to the University of Maryland School of Music because of the intensity of petty and immature music politics especially in the Voice Department.  That was something else!  Who was singing correctly amongst the Voice Faculty and who wasn’t, and who was studying with whom? And the politics weren’t much better in the Keyboard Departments.  I stayed and tried to stay above the politics but it was very difficult to do.

And of course as I have written before, there were politics involved with the childish one-way jealousy and one-way rivalry between the Choral Arts Society and the University of Maryland Chorus. Some in the Choral Arts Society thought that Choral Arts should have had the invitations that the Maryland Chorus received.  I remember when Norman stood up and told the Choral Arts Society Chorus during a break, “A Chorus which shall remain nameless is performing Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis this week at the Kennedy Center.”  He was talking about the Maryland Chorus but didn’t want to say their name.

Lies were told about Dr. Traver by some Choral Arts choristers and they made up all kinds of lies/stories about Dr. Traver, when none of them were true. 

I invited one Choral Arts chorister to go with me to hear the Maryland Chorus perform Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam in the Kennedy Center. That was a mistake on my part. Unfortunately, she found nothing positive to say about the performance or the Chorus. (The Washington Post music reviewer gave it an excellent review and said that, “the University of Maryland Chorus was glorious throughout.” I regretted inviting her. The Maryland Chorus did indeed give a superb performance; I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I liked all three Orchestra Choruses: the Choral Arts Society of Washington, the University of Maryland Chorus and the Oratorio Society of Washington.

The lie was told that “Paul Traver went storming into the Kennedy Center and demanded that his Maryland Chorus perform with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam.” I knew that Dr. Traver would never do anything like that.

So I asked Dr. Traver how Maryland got that engagement and he told me that the Maryland Chorus was recommended to Claudio Abbado by Margaret Hillis (Founder and Director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Chorus) when Abbado called Hillis in Chicago asking for a recommendation of a Chorus in the DC area to perform with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam at the Kennedy Center.  Ms. Hillis had worked with the Maryland Chorus on the campus during a choral workshop and highly recommended them. It had nothing to do with Dr. Traver “storming into the Kennedy Center.”

Dr. Traver accepted the invitations he received and that was it.  When I sang with the Maryland Chorus, there was none of that jealousy/rivalry or even talk about the Choral Arts Society or the Oratorio Society.  I never even heard either Chorus mentioned.  Maryland wasn’t jealous of anyone.

A small world: At the Conservatory where I trained, I had the privilege of being piano accompanist for the Conservatory Concert Choir. The Director of the Choir was studying conducting with Dr. Traver, and he ultimately got his DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts degree) from the University of Maryland School of Music.

Related:

Here’s a programme of Concert V of the 1986 Maryland Händel Festival. They performed Händel’s oratorio Saul.

What does the University of Maryland Concert Choir do all year?

(Overheard in the Conservatory)

UPDATED 30 May 2026:

A state fair that’s not in a state

The 34-count convicted felon and adjudicated sexual pervert assaulter/rapist’s regime of the Epstein Class is having what he calls “the Great American State Fair” in the District of Columbia in June 2026. The problem is that this State Fair is not in any state. So why is it being called a “State Fair,” convicted felon? (shaking head/eye rolls/lol). You can’t make this stuff up! These “maga” cultists are very stupid people. I mean, look at his stupid and incompetent cabinet for example.

His head/ego is the size of the universe but he does not know that the District is not a state? The District is a Federal District and the seat of the US federal government and US capital, not part of any state. He’s lived there how long and still doesn’t know what the District of Columbia is, and that it’s not a state? Of course he never uses the official name (District of Columbia), but rather the sheeple name — which I refuse to type — as a former District resident.

State fairs were most popular in the 1920s. Well, that’s the mindset this piece of trash lives in and where he’s taking the US back to in the name of “Make America Great Again.” (Which America is he referring to since there are three Americas? But I wouldn’t expect him to know that either. I learned from talking with a few “maga” cultists years ago that they don’t believe in maps. One wonders how they get to a place they’ve not been before without a map.) But the dictator lives in very different time period than the rest of us.

Someone should point out to this piece of shit that you can’t have a state fair in a Federal District, and call it a State Fair. DC is not a state, dummy. Doh.

As is usual with the “maga” cult, he’s full of hypocrisy. With all of his techie buddies — including Zuckerberg who moved to Upper NW in the District to be close to this fascist dictator — there was no tech in the 1920. There was no internet in the 1920s. There was no “social media” in the 1920s.

The closest thing to “social media” at that time would be the party lines on the telephone, which were popular between the 1930s through the 1950s.

Related: How did I like living in the District?

Mahler – Symphony No. 2 | Daniel Harding | Bavarian Radio Choir & BRSO:
Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 2, known as the ‘Resurrection Symphony’, performed by the Bavarian Radio Choir and Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Daniel Harding. Recorded live on 27 September 2018 at the Philharmonie im Gasteig, Munich.

UPDATE 28 May 2026: I prefer this performance from 2018 with the same Orchestra and Chorus, but in Munich in 2018 and in a different concert hall and with Daniel Harding conducting. You can compare the two performances for yourself. In this case, since the superb Orchestra and Chorus are the same in both, it really comes down to the conductors and their differing interpretations especially in the Finale, as well as production’s work. The recording audio is brighter and better in the Munich performance, I think. The mic’s picked up the — I’ll call it — the low “Russian bass” sound better in the basses of the Chorus where the other recording (Rattle) didn’t pick that up as well. Daniel also conducts the Finale faster than Simon. This article was written based on the performance conducted by Simon Rattle. It wasn’t until after I posted it that I found the performance conducted by Daniel Harding, so I pulled the article to update it.

“The Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra is a German radio orchestra. Based in Munich, Germany, it is one of the city’s four orchestras. The BRSO is one of two full-size symphony orchestras operated under the auspices of Bayerischer Rundfunk, or Bavarian Broadcasting.”

Yet in the US, the so-called “greatest country” (eye roll) — why does there have to be a “greatest country” when many countries are “great” — the United States of North America has nothing like this.  There is no public broadcasting networks with their own Orchestra and Chorus and in this case both Orchestra and Chorus are superb, absolutely outstanding.  They match each other beautifully. In fact, in the US, federal funding for public media in the so-called “greatest country” has been gutted/eliminated under the fraudulent “Make ‘America’ Great Again” scheme/juvenile Cult with their childish fist-pumping fascist moronic dictator, who, like most fake-Christian, utterly corrupt trash in politics, campaigned on one thing and then did the opposite.

Finding a good performance on YT of this piece from a symphonic choral perspective — which the performance above from Hamburg is — has been difficult, but I can highly recommend this performance from the Bavarian Radio Choir (prepared by Simon Rattle) and BRSO.  Live aufgenommen am 21. März 2026 in der Elbphilharmonie Hamburg.

It’s interesting that Simon is now working as a Chorus Director as well as orchestral conductor.  That’s the same as what the Dean of Choral Music, Robert Shaw, did with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus.  Shaw prepared both the Orchestra and Chorus.  But on occasion, Norman MacKenzie (the piano accompanist) also helped prepare the ASOC.  Upon Shaw’s death, Norman became the Director of Choral Activities for the ASO.

Simon Rattle started out as conductor of The City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra in the UK, and another Simon (Simon Halsey) has been the Chorus Director for the CBSO Chorus since 1983.  I think Halsey has also prepared most of the Choruses in the EU at one time or another, and now Rattle is a Chorus Director as well.  Well, based on this performance and Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis from the superb Bavarian ensembles, Simon Rattle knows his choral music.  The same cannot be said about all orchestral conductors, some of whom are not that good at working with a Chorus.

For this performance, I’ve listened more to the two gorgeous hushed sections than I have the Finale.  I can’t imagine those sections being sung any better.

I don’t remember much about my one-time experience in working with Antal Doráti in the Kennedy Center.  I don’t remember finding him difficult to follow, not that he wasn’t difficult to follow.

I do remember one performance where The Washington Post was a bit critical of his conducting the Brahms’s EDR.  It was a performance by the National Symphony Orchestra and the University of Maryland Chorus in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall.  The problem the first night was that the Maryland Chorus couldn’t follow Doráti’s opening vague beat at the text, “Selig sind.”  I was at all of those performances (three consecutive) and the first night I assumed that Dr. Traver or Doráti wanted quiet consonants, but that wasn’t the case at all as it turned out.  Apparently, the Chorus didn’t know where to put the “t” consonant of “sind” based on Doráti’s vague beat.  If Traver had been conducting there would have been no problem.  But since Doráti was conducting, the opening tempo was a bit muddy.  The WP music reviewer said that “the University of Maryland Chorus is known for their diction so it was not the Chorus who was at fault, but rather Doráti.”  Well, apparently Traver and/or Doráti read that review because the next night that entrance was perfect and there was a very audible “t” on “sind.”

As for this piece, when I was training at the Conservatory, I went with some friends to the Kennedy Center one night and that’s when I noticed that the University of Maryland Chorus performed regularly with the National Symphony Orchestra.  I said to myself:  Well, they must be quite good to practically be the official Chorus of the NSO.  It made me question whether I should transfer to the University of Maryland because our Conservatory Chorus was not performing with the NSO.  Well, nobody else’s was either.  For that season, the Maryland Chorus was performing Mahler’s Symphonie No. 2 (“The Resurrection”), Verdi’s Requiem and Beethoven’s Symphonie No. 9.

Then in another season, I heard them perform the Mahler with (I think) the NSO, so I summed up that these three pieces were Maryland’s signature pieces.  Beethoven’s Ninth certainly was or ended up being, if not the other two pieces as well.

As I’ve written before, I think Deutschland has the best Orchestra Choruses these days with the finest of choral excellence.  I wish I could say the same about some of the Choruses in the US who don’t seem clear on the concept of one of the foundations of choral excellence:  New England Conservatory and Boston University’s Symphonic Chorus come to mind.  And the Tanglewood Festival Chorus as well, although I’ve not heard them under James Burton.  But someone online told me that they sound just like they did when I was writing critically of them.

My choral friend asked:  In this symphonie we hear in this performance the velvety and exquisite sound of this Chorus in the quiet sections, then the vocal soloist comes in with a completely different sound.  She sounds like a siren on an emergency vehicle passing by.  She ruins the moment.  Why didn’t they use one of the choristers to sing that solo passage or why didn’t the soloist use her trained chorister voice?  This piece is not opera.

I said:  Well, I completely agree with you.  This is not opera; there is no costuming or scenery which are two of the requirements for opera.  Mahler never wrote an opera but unfortunately he considered his symphonies as “symphonies for the mind that should contain everything.”  I guess that everything meant screaming and to clash with the velvety sound coming from the Bavarian Radio Choir.  But this piece is not along.  With most symphonic choral works, the same thing happens.  The Chorus can sound similar to the BR Choir and then in comes a soprano vocal soloist and ruins the whole thing.  She doesn’t at all try to match the sound of the Chorus.  At full volume, her voice could overpower everyone on stage and sometimes it does.

My choral friend watched the choral parts of the Mahler 2nd with me.  Does the audience know how difficult it is for this Chorus to sing in a hushed manner, especially  whilst being seated?  He said:  Of course not.  And they don’t care about that.  They’re just there for the music and most couldn’t care less about how the music is produced.  He is correct.  Most people would find any details about the performance boring.  Just as they would find the technique used by the strings for pedal point absolutely boring.

Most people go to “the Symphony” as they call it, for status purposes, and to try to impress someone they know, or to be out with friends.  Most people would be quite comfortable just listening to a CD of a performance at home.  And looking at the faces of many in the audience, they should have done that.  They looked utterly bored just listening to/watching this performance.  One wonders why they bothered to show up?

For those who care (all 2 of you):  The very quiet sections for the Chorus are It’s very difficult because singing quietly and beautifully is not easy and in this instance the Chorus has to stay perfectly in-tune and on pitch (well they have to do that regardless) — without going sharp or flat — so that they are perfectly in tune with the Orchestra when the Orchestra comes back in after the choral section.  Yeah I know, a big YAWN.  Most couldn’t care less.

The only live performance of this piece — where I was in the Concert Hall audience — was in the Kennedy Center.  In that performance, the National Symphony Orchestra and the University of Maryland Chorus were conducted by Antal Doráti.

One of the commenters under the video was saying how emotionless the people in the hall seemed to be.  Yes, especially that lobotomised-looking woman sitting on the first row to the right of the BR Choir.  She absolutely refused to look at the Choir the entire time, even when they were performing.  One wonders why she was there?

I noticed the “bells up” with the French Horn players in the finale.  Is that in the score like that or was that Simon Rattle’s idea.  Some French Horn musicians are not all that hot on the “bells up” thing.  I think they consider it tacky.

I noticed the First Concertmaster and his bouncing around in the finale.  He reminded me of the many pianists of today who feel the need to needlessly bounce around on the piano bench.  It’s all theatrics as no one needs to bounce around when they’re playing.  The Second Concertmaster and some of the other string players were bouncing as well.  But I suspect most of the string musicians were quite tired after this performance considering the fast and repetitive bowing required for this piece.

And of course I’ll make my usual comments about the female vocal soloists.  Here in 2026, there’s still this sexist tradition where female vocalists think they have to show up half naked exposing their cleavage and/or upper chest, as if it’s hot in the hall or something.  Either that, or they get overheated when they sing/scream, sounding like a siren on an emergency vehicle in some cases.  My choral friend can’t stand them and compares them to a jet engine.  And how they don’t even begin to try to match the sound of the Chorus.  Instead, they scream over the Orchestra and Chorus.

As for male performance attire, male soloists are required to show up all covered up like a monk.

The women in the Orchestra were not trying to “sex up” the performance by showing up like that.

To be clear:  I have no problem with nudity or with “showing skin” or with seeing a nude human body and that’s not the point I’m making.   I’m merely pointing out the double-standard, the hypocrisy between the genders per this silly classical music tradition and what’s required.  There are so many silly and ludicrous traditions that make no sense to thinking people in the classical music field.  Why can’t the male soloists show up on stage in a high-end looking tank top or the equivalent where they show as much “skin” and chest as the females?  If they were to do so, they would immediately be asked to go back to their hotel room and “change into something more appropriate.”  And a complaint would later be filed with their artist management, “He showed up here half naked.”  Of course the female vocal soloists are never told that.  Again, some of these silly traditions of the classical music field to “sex up” a performance make absolutely no sense.  Related:  She comes out half-naked.  What if a guy did the same?

Why does there have to be a “Best ever?”  And how would one intelligently determine that?

That’s like me saying that the University of Maryland Chorus was the “best ever.”  I’d never say that because I’ve not heard all other Choruses in the world — recorded or not — to make such a judgment.

But that doesn’t stop the sheeple and their “best ever” mentality in the video comments.  That seems to be the case with simple minds and people pretending to know something about music when they don’t.  I find them very annoying.  And of course there were the extreme comments under the video, such as “Best symphony ever.”  And how can they say that when they’ve not heard all composed symphonies ever?  These extreme people write the same extreme comments about other topics.  “Best pianist ever.”  So extreme.  Well, they can’t accurately say that either because they’ve not heard all pianists ever — recorded or not — to make such an insane judgment.  For example, they’ve not heard one of the piano professors I studied with at the Conservatory.  She could have been a concert artist but chose to go into academia and served as the Chair of the Keyboard Department at a major university’s School of Music.

I’m told the extremists do the same on sex sites with so and so having the best [name of body part] ever!  Even though the over-the-top commenter has not seen all the people on the site and their body parts to make such a ridiculous judgment.

And of course there was the conductor worshipping in the comments, as if Simon Rattle were the only musician on stage and played the orchestral, choral, pipe organ and vocal soloists role all by himself.  Insanity.

It’s also similar to the draft-dodging far-right nationalistic “maga” trash that love to engage in childish fist-pumping and call the US “the hottest country ever.”  Just do a little bit of travelling around the world with an open mind and you’ll see what a foolish statement that is.  The insane US dictator, that piece of LOSER shit in the white house, says how the US is the “hottest country” now.  No need to respond to that.  Consider the source.  One can’t fix stupid so don’t bother trying.

There were some people who came to this performance in Hamburg who probably should have stayed home and listened to a CD of a performance of the Mahler.  There was this woman sitting directly behind that woman I mentioned earlier who didn’t look at the Choir the entire performance.  The woman behind her turned her body and watched the Choir in the quiet sections.  But when the Choir stood and began the Finale section she turned her body and looked straight ahead but unfortunately found something terribly funny from then on and and seemed to be laughing almost uncontrollable throughout the Finale when the camera showed her at a distance.  She looked like she was about to slap the armrest with laughter because she found something so funny.  She seemed to be trying to get the woman next to her to join her in the laughter but she wasn’t able to.  So what was funny?  There’s nothing funny about Mahler’s Symphonie No. 2.

By the way, looking at the Bavarian Radio Choir from the podium, their seating arrangement was ABST (altos on the far left, followed by the basses, then the soprano section and then the tenor section on the far right closest to the audience).

Also, as the Choir stood for the Finale, I noticed extra French Horn players filed onto the stage on the sides and joined the rest of the BR Orchestra, they played standing and they used the “bells up” technique.

Someone in the comments asked about the pipe organ in the hall.  The pipes are in a unique place.  The pipe organ could have been much louder; I didn’t hear it at all although I saw the organist at the black console.  I guess he played the volume level Simon asked for.  I don’t know what the score says about the organ volume level.

My choral friend pointed out how fast the double basses were bowing in the Finale, especially near the very end, something he’d not seen before.  I had not seen that either.  All of the string section was probably exhausted after this performance from the bowing, including the pedal point bowing.

This was an excellent performance — both Orchestra and Chorus — and their production crew did an excellent job of recording it.  I appreciated their attentiveness to the superb BR Choir.

I thought readers might enjoy this excellent performance of the “smokey” (think: incense) Gloucester Service by Herbert Howells, and performed by the superb Choir of Trinity College Chapel (Cambridge), part of the established Church of England.

The Choir area of Gloucester Anglican Cathedral:

The canticles are performed for Choral Evensong (Anglican), but on occasion only the Magnificat will be performed for a different liturgy.

I remember sitting in Grace Cathedral (Anglican Communion) in San Francisco for the Festival of Lessons and Carols liturgy and I looked at the service leaflet and saw the Magnificat of the Gloucester Service listed.  I was thinking to myself but said out loud:  “Oh, they’re doing Howells, my favourite.”  Well, the woman sitting next to me said, “He’s too modern for me.”  I began thinking:  I think CV Stanford’s C Major chords of his well-known Anglican Chant, Psalm 150 would have been too “modern” for her, but I didn’t say that. You can hear that below sung by The Choir of  Trinity College, Cambridge:

I had never heard the Gloucester Service before and after hearing the Howells I was thinking that I had never heard a piece like this.  The best part for me — and still is — was the Gloria where the trebles/boys of the Grace Cathedral Choir of Men and Boys lifted up to that High A and their voices in perfect intonation soared throughout the Nave.  It was glorious.  I was determined to find a good recording of that, but knew it would likely have to come from the Church of England, if it had been recorded at all.  This was also at a time where more Anglican/Episcopal Churches in the United States of North America with a Choir and Organist capable of performing the music of Howells — as it was intended to be performed — were doing so.

Bottom Line:  If a church does not have an outstanding Choir and Organist, forget it!  Don’t even bother!

The same goes for descants.  If the Choir of a church does not have an outstanding soprano section singing with perfect intonation, don’t even bother with descants.  Only the best choral ensembles should do descants and Howells.  Period.

And the Choir of Trinity College, Cambridge (UK) is one of the best.

Howells composed the Gloucester Service in 1946 for the Choir and acoustics of the Cathedral Church of St Peter and the Holy and Indivisible Trinity (Gloucester Anglican Cathedral).  I think of the Gloucester Service as smokey, as in High Church incense.  I think Howells was a High Church person.  He did compose an organ piece titled “Siciliano for a High Ceremony.”

The mic’ing for this performance — at least to my ears — sounds closer to the choristers than previous performances of it where the mics seemed farther away from the Choir.   The Organ Scholar accompanying is Augustin Cox, who informally goes by the name Gus.

About the mic’ing:  the Men of the Choir could be louder.  The Women overpower them especially on the sopranos soaring High A in the climax of the Glorias.  It’s the mic’ing.  The same things happens at The Queen’s College Chapel in Oxford.  The Women overpower the Men there too.

I’m not sure where the mics are since none are within camera view, but the Men of the Choir in both Chapels need to be better mic’d.  My choral friend said the same; he was the one who first noticed it.  I’ve noticed it too, but I’m sort of used to it being the way it is.

I do want to make mention of the staggered breathing used in the canticles per Steve Grahl’s direction.  Most Choirs breathe at those places and it’s much nicer with the sound continuing as Trinity did.

In the video immediately above, the Howells begins at approximately:

Magnificat:  52.40

Nunc Dimittis:  1.01.42

As a High Church person and former Organist/Choirmaster in an Anglo-Catholic parish, you’d never know that the High Church Movement began at Oxbridge (the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge) by observing the Low Church congregation and the priest.  The choristers are the most High Church of anyone there.

For example, I only saw two guys bowing for the Glorias in the Howells.  Neither of the priests bowed, but then they are women.  At this point, I’m surprised when women priests bow, on the odd occasion they do.  Most women priests seem to be “bottom basement” Low Church.

And as I have written before, if anyone is going to follow Anglican protocol, it’s always guys — including male priests — who do so.  Why is there this difference between the genders when it comes to following Anglican protocol?  Women (including women priests) seem to think they are above all that, including the two female priests in the Trinity Chapel.

So one would never know that the High Church Movement (Anglo-Catholic) began at Oxbridge by observing this Choral Evensong.

Also, their conductor-less Anglican Chant (for the psalm) was lovely.

That’s what I overheard in the Conservatory. And they’re correct. They were talking about the 34-count convicted felon and adjudicated sexual pervert assaulter rapist of The Epstein Class. Some of the international students were asking, “How is it that a 34-count convicted felon was allowed to take up residency in the white house?” Because of an insane cult mentality and his deranged cultists see this piece of shit as their messiah and “the second coming.” Yes, the concept of that is insane isn’t it? And that’s a question I’ve asked often, but the “maga” trash — including the “maga” trash in the US congress who reside in the dictator’s upper colon, and on the supreme court — don’t seem to have any problem with it. (I’m deliberately not using initial caps in those places above because I have no respect for much of the congress or the “maga” trash on the corrupt supreme court. Maybe that’s because, in part, I used to live in the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia and saw all of that corrupt political shit for what it is.

Some of the Conservatory students were passing this video around (below), so I thought I’d pass it along here. One thing they pointed out that when anyone from around the world is a guest in the white house that they sit back in their chair in a relaxed manner. I’ve never seen the dictator/convicted felon sit back or relaxed. Never. Instead, as they said in the hallway, “he always sits like he’s sitting on the toilet.” True. Is that because of his diaper(s)?

I scanned some of the comments under the video above, and you would think that people who support or agree with California Governor Gavin Newsom would know how to spell his last name, no? But they don’t. People are constantly putting an “e” on the end even when his name is spelled correctly in the title of the video. His name is spelled:

Newsom. It’s not Newsome (no “e” on the end people), as his supporters wrote in their comments. (roll eyes)

Update: This is a fascist regime in the white house so calling this “an administration” is incorrect. Regime is the word that goes with fascism. Yet most people are still calling this “an administration” — as if this is still a democracy — which really sanitises their regime and their draconian agenda.

Conservatory Training:

At the Conservatory where I trained, one of the things we were taught was the difference between the words Chorus and chorus, and I was in the Vocal-Choral Music Programme.

The word chorus (lower case c) is the word to be used when referring to the chorus of a hymn or a song, as in “Let’s sing the chorus now.”

Whereas Chorus (upper case C) is the word to be used when referring to the Chorus that performed a piece without having to say the full name of the Chorus each time. So the San Francisco Symphony Chorus is hereinafter referred to as the Chorus, upper case C.

The San Francisco Symphony knows this: On their website at this link: when they write about the San Francisco Symphony Chorus (note: upper case C), without writing out the full name each time, from then on they write: the Chorus. Go to that link and see for yourself.

A capital C for Chorus is also a way of denoting respect for the Chorus, which in this case is the Official Chorus of the San Francisco Symphony. But this also applies to a Chorus that is not the Official Chorus for an Orchestra, such as the Choral Arts Society of Washington Chorus or the University of Maryland Chorus.

Too often a Chorus and its choristers are seen by some ignorant people as second class musicians. I know from experience. Some people hold to the unfortunate thinking that, “They’re just the Chorus.” Yet the same people don’t say, “They’re just the Orchestra” when referring to orchestral musicians. Note the double-standard in the minds of some of the public between musical ensembles. And no one ever says, “He’s just the conductor.” No, quite the contrary. Most people especially in YT comments engage in conductor-worshipping as if the conductor were the only musician on stage and responsible for the entire performance. Related: Nigel Kennedy: Conductors are so over-rated.

These days, it’s not so much the case, but I remember a time where classical music radio announcers would only announce the name of the Orchestra for a symphonic choral performance. That left me wondering: Well which Chorus was that? When I called them on it, they said: I just assumed that the Chorus was part of the Orchestra. And why would one assume that? No Chorus is part of an Orchestra even if an Orchestra has its own Chorus. That’s why they are called, for example, The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chorus. They are two separate ensembles, and they perform separately, as well as together.

These days because fewer symphonic choral works are programmed per season — and it’s usually one of The Big Three that have survived — often the Chorus resorts to doing its own thing in order to survive and have something to do during the season since they don’t have many appearances with the Orchestra.

So these days, the announcers usually say, for example:

“That was a performance by the Boston Symphony Orchestra conducted by Andris Nelsons. Also assisting was the Tanglewood Festival Chorus, James Burton, Music Director.”

Or back in the day when The Maryland Chorus was around, “That was a performance by the National Symphony Orchestra [conducted by _______] and the University of Maryland Chorus, Paul Traver, Music Director.

As for the words Chorus and chorus, these days, unfortunately, most sloppy music critics/reviewers don’t know any of this, so they mix and match the two words (chorus and Chorus) all the time. But they mostly use the wrong word in their reviews.

In one review of the Tanglewood Festival Chorus (TFC), one reviewer refused to use initial caps for the word Chorus, even in the full name of the Chorus. And in a couple of instances in her review — considering the pieces/repertoire the TFC had performed, I didn’t know whether she was talking about the chorus of one of the pieces or the Chorus (Tanglewood Festival Chorus) that had performed with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. I did a double-take on that and it took me a few moments to figure out what this insipid music critic woman was trying to say.

I find music critics/reviewers quite frustrating to read because of their sloppiness and inaccurate writing style. Not all, but most.

Well it’s not just music critics, writers these days have become very sloppy especially with proper names.

Last week someone was writing about a Medical Center and wrote UCSF medical center. That’s a proper name so it should be UCSF Medical Center. Doh. Where did that writer train? Why the lower case for medical center? Sigh. It’s all part of the Century of Insanity, I suppose.

But I hope this helps clear up the difference between Chorus (an ensemble) and chorus (part of a hymn or song) for the two people reading this who give a fuck. Since most people won’t.

My choral friend said about this article: This will be a very popular article. Yes, I’m sure. He was being sarcastic of course.

Repost.  The Rheinberger Kyrie.  To hear/watch the Kyrie, go to 8.55 in the video above.  There are many, many Kyries.  Every Mass setting has a Kyrie and some are better than others.

The Trinity Choir (Choral Scholars) of the University of Cambridge at Oxbridge in the UK performed the Rheinberger Mass in E Flat earlier in 2025.  I had never heard the piece before.

The Trinity Choir, Director Steven Grahl, is the resident Choir of the Trinity Chapel which is part of the established Church of England/Anglican.

I’ve been listening to the Kyrie for Double Chorus of this Mass setting since they performed it.  I’m going to get a bit technical musically which may bore most of you, but if you listen to this Kyrie, it may or may not have the same affect on you as it does for me.  It moves me every time I hear it, in part, because of the level of choral excellence, the highest skill level of these Choral Scholars at Trinity College, as well as the choral writing.  Give this score to another choral ensemble and it likely wouldn’t sound like this, in part, because it would not be these choristers or their level of excellence.

I think it was Grammophone magazine that rated The Trinity Choir the fifth best choral ensemble in the world.  I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion and I don’t know who was first, according to them.  But The Trinity Choir is my favourite Anglican collegiate Choir at Oxbridge.  If you listen closely to this Kyrie — notice that the piece is a cappella or sung without organ accompaniment — I think there is only one place in the piece where the choristers come to a complete break or silence.  In other words, the piece is sung with staggered breathing throughout meaning the sound never stops.  There are many moving lines in the SATB choral writing and the choristers bring those parts out beautifully.  The basses have this deep rumbling sound to them; I’d almost call it what’s known as the Russian bass sound.  At the end, the Choir ends on a hushed “n” of the word eleison.  I can’t imagine the piece being performed any better than they did at Trinity.  They gave an exquisite performance.  Also, only the finest choral ensembles can sing quietly and beautifully.

But I realise the piece may not speak to others the way it does to me.  Maybe it’s just me.  The other parts of the Mass setting are also excellent, but I haven’t paid as much attention to them yet as I have the Kyrie.  To hear/watch the Kyrie, go to 8.55 in the video above.  It was part of the Choral Eucharist or Mass for that day.

I won’t ask why can’t or don’t the fluttering and wobbling with annoying noticeable vibrato — which prevents perfect intonation; one of the foundations of choral excellence — choral ensembles at New England Conservatory, Boston University’s School of Music, Shenandoah Conservatory or the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s Tanglewood Festival Chorus sound like this?  Why can’t they?  Why don’t they?  I could list others but they are the ones that come to mind.  Answer:  It has to do with the training and some Choral Directors are simply not doing their job quite frankly.  They know they’ll get paid regardless!  It also has to do with who auditions and their skill level.

When it comes to choral excellence, the size of the ensemble is irrelevant.  Choral excellence applies to a 200-voice Orchestra Chorus just as it applies to an ensemble the size of The Trinity College Choir (30 voices, I think).

Some reviews of The Trinity Choir:

When an expert panel listed the 20 greatest choirs in the world for Gramophone magazine, Trinity College Choir was placed fifth: the only University Choir in the top five.

One of the requirements for being “maga” is to be a hypocrite (and chronic liar). The US dictator is a perfect example of that.

I suppose everyone who has been paying attention knows by now — regardless of where they live in the world — that the US dictator and the other “maga” trash are extremely racist. JD was reported to have been slapping the desk uncontrollable after hearing a racist joke told by the dictator. (But JD’s wife is not white. That doesn’t make any difference to these racist trash).

Some people say the dictator is a not-so-closeted nazi. He’s definitely a fascist which is why he has installed a fascist regime, if he is not a nazi. He hates on anyone who is not Caucasian and who does not speak US English, even though he struggles to string two sentences together in US English.

As a dictator, he has abused the executive order process. One of the many things he’s done by executive order is to make US English the official language of the US. Then why does his Florida home have an español/Spanish name? That’s not adhering to the “maga” cult English-only rubbish. Mar-a-Lago is not English. It’s español meaning Sea to Lake.

This regime has made it clear that these “maga” trash hate Latinos, or is it just non-white Latinos they hate? There are many white Latinos, including those with blond hair, but I suspect the average person in the US ignorantly thinks that “all Latinos have dark skin pigmentation, hair and eyes.”

I bring this up because Marco Rubio who is a white Latino has presumably replaced that abrasive and verbally abusive, rude, blond bitch who served as chief propagandist and white house spokesliar.

Why is Marco up there serving as “press secretary,” since he’s Latino? I thought the dictator hated Latinos. Or are white Latinos okay? The dictator probably thinks that most people won’t know that, despite his name. “Marco looks like a white guy.”

The press room was packed on 5 mayo/May with journalist who apparently enjoy being talked down to and being verbally abused. I don’t know why anyone would go to the white house to hear chronic lying and to be verbally abused, but they certainly fill that room and ask these chronic liars of this fascist regime questions. Are these journalists so delusional to expect to get an honest answer? This “maga” regime is full of chronic liars.

And why is a secretary of state serving as white house spokesliar and chief propagandist?

One has to assume that this inept, insipid and incompetent fascist regime led by a 34-count convicted felon and adjudicated sexual pervert assaulter rapist (“grab ’em by the pussy”) of the Epstein Class with terribly arrogant people not qualified for the positions they hold and which is taking the US back to the 1930s — has nothing better to do with Marco’s time.