Peter Giles on Females in Cathedral Choirs
Nicola Edwards
>mail about the English cathedral choral tradition. Like a first group from
>elsewhere on the net, it needs answering. Again, how I wish it didnít!
Hello Peter. Thank you for your mail via Mary Jane. I feel your comments need answering too!
>The English cathedral all-male choral tradition is now unique. It stretches
>back some thirteen hundred years, and is all that now remains of a
>Europe-wide glory. Except in Britain, mainly England, religious and
>political machinations have swept it away,
'machinations'? 'sweeping away'? Or groups of people deciding to worship God in a different way, of their own choice?
>other than in the odd corner. Its
>absence leaves an aching musical void.
The absence of professional cathedral-singing opportunities for women leaves an 'aching musical void' for them and for those who would like to hear them taking part. A choirgirl who suddenly finds herself redundant is not just 'threatened' but permanently expelled.
>Now, iconoclasts---either wittingly
>or unwittingly---or the well-meaning but mistaken, threaten its last domain.
>Even in the interests of modish politics, why must this be?
I believe that women's and girls opportunities are in the interests of women and girls (50 per cent of the population), not 'modish politics'. And as I have said, I'm sure ways can be found so we can all take part; I have no desire to see the end of the all-male choirs, but would also like to see female involvement in professional cathedral singing.
>The subject is so subjective! Tone is concerned with the choir
>directorís stylistic intention and ideal---ëRomanticí, ëClassicalí, ëBaroque
>í, et al.
Likewise, there are some women-including choirs with different tones from others; so we cannot generalise about these either.
>The boyís inherent singing voice and style has a character and an evanescent
>beauty which is unique---the result, seemingly, of a particular kind of
>muscle-tone and boy-psychology. This doesnít stop it from being much
>imitated---particularly by young women trained to sing repertoire written
>for boys, instead of glorying in their characteristic, female timbre.
Yes, women do obviously have a different natural sound to boys or young girls. As I'm sure you know, while it was fine from the start of the choral tradition for adult men in history to produce an 'adult' sound in cathedrals, the church had a problem with women's voices supposedly sounding 'too sexy' (even though men's do too). Rather than giving men responsibility for their own self-control, women were disallowed from taking part lest they distracted any vulnerable men in the choir/congregation! (There was supposedly no potential problem of the men's voices distracting women). Young boys and were 'sexless' and so allowed to sing. It's disappointing that this still seems to be the background to some mindsets, even to the point of adult women trying to sound like boys. I agree with you that women's voices should be celebrated for what they are.
>Pre-pubertal boys and girls sound different, instinctively. If they are
>mixed in the same choir, as is so already in a few British cathedrals,
The majority of cathedrals have chosen to keep the boys and girls separate. (Although I have heard of at least one study which proved there is no difference between the boys' and girls' sounds before a certain age).
>To sing at his best or at all, the boy needs the right ethos: a masculine
>team in a masculine league. Boys dislike singing alongside girls. If the
>boys go---which, of course, will happen eventually if you mix choirgirls
>with them---what about the future supply of suitable men singers?
If, as is currently the case in most cathedrals with girls, the choirs are kept separate, then this won't come about.
>Indeed, the singing boy is now an endangered species.
There are many factors behind this such as less singing on average in schools, more other pursuits being available to boys and girls, declining interest in certain types of worship, and so on. It's inaccurate and unkind to just blame the girls for any lack of boys, when all these other factors are present.
>Nature knows nothing of equal opportunity.
Nor does s/he know anything of *unequal* opportunity. It is up to us to be wise stewards of nature's/God's gifts, deciding for ourselves how we use them, who we include in certain groups, and so on. We have been given free will with which to make our own decisions about these things.
>A boy has, say, (with training) five years of fully effective treblehood.
... and his whole life to continue singing alto, tenor or bass, with opportunities for auditioning for cathedral vacancies throughout the UK as they occur.
>A girl has her whole life to continue singing soprano,
>if she wishes, in every vocal field, globally, except for the men's-voice
>choir and for now fewer than one hundred traditional all-male cathedral
>choirs, all-told, world-wide; most of which have survived in England.
A man has his whole life to sing alto, tenor or bass, in every vocal field, globally, except for all-female choirs, and including any cathedral choir of his choice where there is a vacancy and he is selected.
The difference is exactly what we are discussing - cathedrals and their exclusion of women from professional singing.
>So why increase the unfairness to the boy by putting even his five fleeting years
>at risk?
There is not 'unfairness' to boys, and their treble years will not be 'at risk'. I have not suggested that the choirs of boys and men should be abolished, and it must be possible for happy musical co-existence of women, men, girls and boys to take place happily in God's houses.
>Is it fair to extinguish or put at genuine risk a wonderful,
>specialist art-form simply because it just happens to be inherently male?
>Does it have no right to survive?
Yes, it can survive, and I would like to see it doing so alongside choirs which include girls and women. I would no more wish to see an 'all-female' tradition adamantly excluding men from working alongside it, than I enjoy seeing the opposite.
>In the forty or so main cathedrals,
>the men are full-time members of these ancient Foundations, but are now on
>part-time hours and certainly part-time salaries!
On the Choraltalk list we have discussed how women would not be 'in it for the money' any more than men are. They would be aiming to put to good use their special gifts and talents, to the professional standards which they are capable. We have also discussed a variety of possible methods of funding for the women-including choirs.
>ëThere are instances in life where it is necessary to break with traditioní
>writes one correspondent. Yes, some. But her examples are interesting. The
>understandable demise of the ( ) minstrel show---a tradition of about a
>century---was caused by political and sociological pressures. The fading of
>the operatic and church castrati (a tradition of about three centuries)
>during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was the result of
>changes in musical fashion. Only now is it fancied as being to do with
>humanitarianism!
And a good thing too, that human factors of kindness and inclusivity are now thought to be even more important than musical factors, and that unkindnesses in the name of art are fading.
>Yet in losing the eunuchoid voice, the art of singing has
>lost its finest ever vocal instrument.
I disagree. It's all a matter of personal taste. Personally I think that the voices of men, women, boys and girls are all, equally, our finest ever vocal instruments.
>Truly, has it been worth it in a severely over-populated world?
Yes! I don't think mutilation should be used as an excuse for 'art'.
>Though there is no direct connection, if---or
>when---the present moves to dismantle the unique English all-male choir are
>successful
I don't know of any moves to 'dismantle the unique English all-male choir'. Would you mind telling us what these are?
>The loss of even one statutory choral service per week to some other kind of
>choir is to weaken the existing tradition.
The inclusion of women and girl singers in cathedrals is to enhance and make complete the existing tradition.
>The ëmale-dominated set-upí? ëPositive discriminationí is fast changing the
>character---some would say the integrity---of the Anglican priesthood (ie,
>concerning both Apostolic succession and scriptural authority), for ever.
The Church of England voted to accept women priests, so if it is consistent it will accept professional women singers too. St Paul's quoted comment on women is not the only sentence in the Bible; many see Jesus's treatment of women as accepting of their individual gifts, whether in or out of the home. Some women have gifts of teaching, leadership or singing, just as men do.
>Whether women can become bishops or priests or not, at the present rate, in
>the present climate, not only the ordained ministry but most other domains
>in the Anglican church, including cathedral music, look likely to be
>predominately female in the next decade or so.
Really? They are certainly not predominantly female at the moment. It may just be that we will see a 'balancing out' of the sexes taking place, rather than a predominance of women.
>That is, if a powerful lobby gets its way.
Which one? I don't know of any 'lobby' which wants women to have *greater* opportunities than men.
>So English cathedral music proper is a unique art-form. Unfortunately for
>today, it happens to be an inherently male one.
The all-male choirs are not in themselves 'unfortunate'; clearly they are of value to many. However, the tradition of excuding girls and women, I believe *is* unfortunate, and can and should be changed.
>It is surely self-evident that, in itself, this particular art-form does not
>actually NEED anything except a regular supply of boys and men, and new
>repertoire to add to its centuriesí-old treasury.
God did not 'need' to create women as well as men; he could have made men hermaphrodites if he had really wanted to. God *chose* to create women, with singing voices and other gifts. Likewise, we can *choose* to include women and girls in cathedral choirs.
>Any ëdevelopmentí of the tradition (a term beloved of those who would meddle with it!) can >take place within this framework.
Women who would like to be involved in cathedral singing are not 'meddling', any more than men have 'meddled' with women's rights throughout history, dictating to women what they are (according to men) entitled, or not entitled, to do.
>No musical art-form which is inherently and purposely restricted in its
>vocal intake and musical repertoire, and depends on these for its integral
>sound, can exist at all if those restrictions---which have a positive, not
>negative, function and result---are removed.
I'll say it again - I'm quite happy for male choirs to continue, but would also like to see choirs which include girls/women.
>So letís be positive! Except for the London cathedrals, there is scarcely a
>major church in that vast city which does not employ (yes, employ) women
>singers of excellent standard, a few men, and no (repeat, no) boys.
Obviously, not all women in the UK are able to move to London; and most do not live there.
>In the cathedral
>musical world, though, surely a new role awaits girl and women singers.
>(Here I hope I might find a measure of agreement with Nicola.) It would
>involve exciting fresh possibilities for experimental choral work with new
>repertoire, and, of course, earlier music custom-composed for female
>voices---like that written by Vivaldi for the Ospedale, to take one example.
>The all-female choir would not sing the daily Office, but would present
>other services and events using a fresh approach. It wouldnít involve
>imitating that of the boys and men, of annexing their custom-composed
>repertoire, even in a separate choral ensemble. Such an ensemble would
>parallel, not metamorphose, the male choir. It would offer something new to
>express the female genius, and glory in its (properly) distinctive sound
>quality, rather than to seek to imitate the male tradition. A few cathedrals
>seem on the edge of going down this path, though most appear to lack the
>imagination, flair, and yes, determination needed.
I'm glad to see that you are trying to think of ways to involve women in the highest-quality cathedral music. While I still believe, as you know, that this should include women singing some of the daily offices too, I am pleased to see that you have some ideas for our inclusion in cathedral music as a whole. Will your organisation be helping to implement these ideas?
>ëWhen a composer has specific timbres in mind that [intention] would be
>completely changed with a change of instrument or voiceí, wrote one of you.
>How true!
Where mixed choirs of men and women are founded, obviously there isn't immediately going to be a huge church music repertoire which was written for them to sing, so they will want/have to use music which does exist already. If this was originally written for boys and men (and we are not always certain that composers wouldn't have preferred women singers had they been 'allowed') - so be it; in my opinion much of it can sound magnificent in the hands of really good adult choirs, and if the male choirs are continued in parallel, the music will still often be performed this way too.
>The all-male cathedral choir (now merely a branch of the wider English
>choral tradition) cannot be misogynous simply because women have been
>excluded---any more than a Baroque ensemble is piano-hating because its
>unique sound does not include that of a Steinway.
A Steinway is not a human being, so it will not mind if it is excluded.
>Some folk ëharp oní about cathedral music, as distinct from other good
>church music, because cathedral music, with its ëinequalitiesí (sic), is
>still there---just! Itís a constant irritation to some, until ëreformedí,
>thereby transformed into current political acceptability and therefore
>extinction as a unique sound made by a unique instrument.
I don't think women see cathedral music as a 'constant irritation'. Rather, they like it and would like to have a part to play (or sing!) in it.
>However laudable in principle,
Thank you; I think equality of opportunity is a good principle too.
a policy of ëequal opportunitiesí is likely
>to have a disastrous effect on our choral tradition.
It depends how it is handled; with care and sensitivity it could have an excellent effect.
>"Democracy," wrote C.S. Lewis, "is all very well as a political device. It must not intrude >into the spiritual, or even the aesthetic, world."
"Democracy", writes N. Edwards, "is very good as a political device, and can also be beneficial in giving everyone the chance to take part in the highest-quality Christian music making".
>Those who clamour for all choirs everywhere to be mixed-voice
I haven't been advocating this. I've been saying that we can have choirs which include girls/women in addition to the all-male choirs.
---except,
>presumably, for well-established, successful all-female choirs!---
Likewise, if this were the situation in most cathedrals, I'd be advocating that men should be allowed to join in with their own choirs too.
Regarding the question of men/women on alto lines - presumably that would be up to individual cathedrals to decide whether to have
1) women altos when they had women sopranos, and male altos with boy/girl trebles
2) a mixed alto line
>one correspondent in particular seems to believe that the radical interests of
>women/equal opportunities should be paramount,
Most people these days see equal opportunities as normal, not radical.
In a church which calls itself the 'Church of England', I would hope to see all types of people represented in all its aspects (on skill and merit for paid positions). Supposing cathedral 'art' was only ever to depict white people, and no black people, because 'that's they way it's always/usually been'?? Or how about if some cathedrals decided not to employ clergy who use wheelchairs 'because traditionally clergy take the service standing up/in the pulpit, and they wouldn't manage it'?? Clearly these would be outrageous things to happen. It is equally outrageous that some people still think it's fine to discriminate against women, when they wouldn't dream of discriminating against other groups of people.
>Jonathan Swift, Dean of St Patrickís Cathedral, Dublin (not Christ Church
>Cathedral!), author of much including Gulliverís Travels, gave us the dictum
>"Thereís none so blind as they who wonít see."
Are you applying this to people (women and men) who approve of female involvement in cathedral choirs? Maybe they would think it applies to those who *disapprove*.
>All mainstream European
>non-operatic choral music, sacred and secular, from, say the thirteenth to
>approximately the mid-eighteenth century, and all English cathedral music to
>the recent present, was written for choirs of men and boys.
It will still receive many performances by them.
>Christ Church Cathedral choir, Dublin? Fine! But it hardly compares with
>Kingís, or St Johnís College, Cambridge; or ChristChurch (Oxford),
>Canterbury, and Westminster cathedrals; Westminster Abbey, St Georgeís
>Chapel in Windsor Castle---and several more truly superlative traditional
>choirs of boys and men.
How about the mixed choir of Clare College Cambridge or the Tallis Scholars?
>(SNIP) And that an historical,
>distinctive choral sound, a unique aspect of human utterance, will have been
>made extinct for essentially political reasons.
This does not have to happen. And I don't see women's inclusion in all aspects of life as being 'political' - I see it as normal.
Throughout history music has been influenced by society, and if it had not been, cathedral music would not have existed in the first place. Politics, history and music are all related. I think it would be a mistake to discuss the 'Women Choristers' issue as either purely political or purely musical. I am pleased that on the Choraltalk list both political and musical angles have been discussed, since they are interrelated (as they were when the all-male choirs were originally formed).
>Alan Ridout described the choir of boys and men as ëa fragile musical
>miracleí. Some people donít believe in miracles. Or perhaps they simply donít like
>them.
I believe in miracles and I like to hear choirs of boys and men. I would also like to see women and girls using their own miraculous God-given voices and abilities in the highest-quality cathedral music.
Nicola