The Chatham Chorale, judging from the Chamber Singers, has the potential to perform with excellence. But it must be demanded of them, which takes informed and determined direction.
Chatham Chorale Chamber Singers. Conducted by Joseph Marchio. At First Congregational Church of Yarmouth, MA, December 18.
By Anthony J. Palmer
Chatham Chorale
Conductors do make a difference. I was on the Cape for a couple of days, and the program of the Chatham Chorale Chamber Singers looked intriguing. I had not heard the Vivaldi Gloria in quite a while. To my dismay, the first-year music director, Joseph Marchio, was not up to the task. This was especially evident when the previous music director was called back to conduct one of the works on the program. Suddenly, the Chamber Chorale was a decidedly different group, though some of its bad habits were still in evidence.
Fundamental to any choral group must be a development of the singing voice. Given a lack in how to produce a resonant, balanced tone, in tune and with control of both diction and dynamic levels, the resulting sound will be inappropriate to any piece of music being performed. All of these factors come from the conductor’s understanding of the vocal medium. A balanced tone is destroyed when air is pushed through the vocal tract instead of modulated with an equal amount of pressure both projected and retained, thus achieving resonance within the vocal space. For the Chatham Chorale, the fortes were blatant and the pianos showed signs that the chorus could be asked for better vocal production.
A conductor also has the responsibility to educate both the choral group and its audience on what to expect in terms of the expression of musical values. Subtle, yet significant, standards are posited in the performance. Were all performances to be of an uninspired level and show a careless attention to details, audiences would never expect more. Conductors set the standards, both by the musical works selected and their performance. This is also true of how choruses are rehearsed. Sloppiness in the learning process sets up a low level of expectation, so that the singers become lax and do not progress towards a more sensitive artistry. While the singers in this concert appeared confident and self-assured, their lack of know-how and time working with the music was obvious.
The opening of the concert with Buxtehude’s Magnificat could have been an appropriate vehicle for the chorus had the soloists been of solo quality. Taken from the chorus, they were not sufficiently vocally trained nor did they understand the Baroque style, with its demands for appropriate embellishments (conductor’s responsibility). Professional level soloists also present a model for the less accomplished choral singer. The rendition of the Buxtehude was dull and lacked in energy.
I sing of a maiden by Patrick Hadley for women’s voices began tentatively, as did the piano accompaniment. Because a strong concept of what the work required for effective articulation was missing, the performance was mediocre.
The Gloria of Vivaldi suffered from the same problems as the Buxtehude. Once again, professional level soloists were missing, as is the role they play in modeling good vocal technique and providing a demanding artistic approach to the music. Competent instrumentalists lent accompaniment to the Gloria, but the conductor failed to demand and achieve a coherent ensemble sound. A simple direction to have the musicians and singers listen to each other more carefully could have improved the performance significantly.
Chatham Chorale
Without describing each work on the second half, mention need be made of the first chorus piece, which was conducted by Marjorie Bennett Morley, a co-founder of the Chatham Chorale. Rather quickly, and through minimal motion, she quieted the group and shaped the sound with professional skill. What was immediately evident was that the chorus was capable of making better music than they had been they asked to do so. Fortunately, the improved choral sound carried over to the remaining pieces to some degree, particularly Morten Lauridsen’s O Magnum Mysterium. The performance evoked a bit of the mysterious: it was perhaps the best of the Marchio-conducted pieces.
The second half began with audience participation on O Come, All Ye Faithful and ended with the audience joining in on Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.
Whatever a conductor’s background, study must be made of the medium through which one expresses her or his musicality. The Chatham Chorale, judging from the Chamber Singers, has the potential to perform with excellence. But it must be demanded of them, which takes informed and determined direction and demanding rehearsals.
Sir:
Who is Tony Palmer ?
Several statements made in a critique of a recent performance by the Chatham Chorale’s Chamber Singers are INCORRECT.
Further, the style of critique conveys an unfortunate arrogance and superiority. As well as inappropriate, I find this manner highly offensive and stuffily passe.
Am I correct in assuming etiquette no longer has a place between performer(s) and critics?
Very truly yours,
Alexandra Hill
Editor’s Note: Hill is a singer member of Chatham Chorale’s main section; she is not a Chamber singer. She serves on the organization’s Board of Directors in a couple of capacities, the most prominent of which is public relations.
What Are the Responsibilities of the Reviewer of a Music Performance?
The question is very important for those who read reviews, for those being reviewed, and for the conductor of the performance reviewed. My answer is in response to a reader who expressed great unhappiness about a review that I posted on a performance by the Chatham Chorale Chamber Singers on December 18 of 2011.
The reader can expect from the reviewer at least some understanding of the medium being reviewed or at least a broad, if not specific, knowledge of the performance medium and music being performed. Secondly, neutrality to the extent possible is a necessary component in a review. In other words, a reviewer should not have, to use an old cliché, an axe to grind. Nor should one have animus toward any of the performers. Further, one would hope that the reviewer is exercising honesty in what is said.
Finally, the reviewer should keep in mind that a review is a means to satisfy ends beyond the performance, namely, to broaden the knowledge of the reader, point out where the performers need to improve, and to guide the overall reception of the performance by the audience should there be additional performances.
When a review is virtually all-complimentary, the reviewer can further educate the audience by pointing out why a performance rates the merit exhibited. In the end, no review is devoid of subjective evaluation. All reviewers bring education and experience to the task. The stronger these aspects, the more enlightening will be the review.
The reader also has a responsibility. If there is a criticism of a review, in order to get the reader’s objections across to the reviewer, ad hominem attacks need to be avoided and the remarks should be specific, especially when it refers to facts.
My review of the Chatham Chorale Chamber Singers, I believe, adhered to all the points I listed above, although the objections voiced by a reader did not state one fact in error. I read my review before responding in this message, and I did not detect one statement that was factually incorrect, mostly because I stated few facts. It was all opinion based on my background. Quite often, the background of the reviewer is readily available. Arts Fuse reviewers have their biographies on the website. In this case, I was fully qualified to review the Chatham Chorale Chamber Singers’ performance.
Most importantly, my review was quite positive on the Chorale itself. I stated more than once that the group had great potential. This was revealed, I thought, when I wrote of the previous leader of the group conducting one number and the result being significantly better. In essence, my criticism was largely, if not completely, about the conductor. It is axiomatic that in most instances of large group performance, the conductor is responsible for what the group does or does not do in performance. How the group is prepared in all the elements that are required for excellence in performance falls to the conductor. This is true especially with amateur choral groups whose members frequently come to the task with less cultivation of their talents than their instrumental sisters and brothers.
Everyone can sing, so to speak, but to play an instrument takes very specific training and education. Consequently, choruses must not only be taught the music and its interpretation but also how to build her or his choral instrument: production of sound (proper inhalation and phonation), control of dynamics, vowel formation, textual and rhythmic articulation, and use of the voice to properly interpret the various genres of music. Lacking any of these factors shows immediately in the performance because it is based on the group’s ability to sing well. Beyond individual vocality, there is the matter of choral values, a group process: singing in tune, paying close attention to blend and balance, controlling the dynamics and phrasing, and attending to matters of interpretation.
There were four of us who attended the Chatham performance, two with doctoral degrees in music and two highly gifted amateurs. We were of complete accord in our opinions. If the reader who sent a negative response were to read my review devoid of emotion, she would see that my comments were exactly as I just described them. If the group is to make progress, the vocal and choral elements I mentioned are fundamental to its progress. I wish them well in their continued endeavors to grow in their musical achievements.
Respectfully,
Anthony J. Palmer
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Unfortunately, my not having been able to attend this concert prevents my agreeing or disagreeing with your evaluation from personal experience. However, based on comments heard from others who did attend, many of the criticisms in your review, aside from the more didactic material, may indeed have validity. The wise musician would do well to give them careful consideration.
However (with awareness of your later comment that “ad hominem attacks are to be avoided”), your review seemed such an unequivocally negative evaluation of Mr. Marchio’s capabilities as music director and conductor that this reader’s first response after reading it was to wonder whether the reviewer had had some previous negative personal experience with Mr. Marchio. While he is young and much of his experience and musical growth thus lie ahead of him, Mr. Marchio, in my observation, is a musician of extraordinary sensitivity and intelligence, as well as a choral and orchestral conductor of great skill. He can and does inspire and motivate both amateur and professional singers to reach beyond themselves to higher performance levels both musically and vocally.
Despite his brief tenure thus far, the Chatham Chorale has already improved immeasurably in quality of choral sound, musical sensitivity, dynamic variation, and intonation under his direction. But to appreciate these differences, one must have some awareness of the distance travelled thus far, and they cannot, unfortunately, be captured by observations made at a single point in time.
Barbara Howerton
howerton@post.harvard.edu
Executive Board member,
Chatham Chorale
Ms. Howerton: I had never heard a group conducted by Mr. Marchio before, nor had I heard the Chatham singers before. There was no animosity toward the group or its conductor. My concern was that the changes from one selection to the next showed no different approach in singing or in interpretation; thus the conductor in my opinion had to be the primary problem. I felt it necessary to be honest in my critique with the idea that Mr. Marchio would take these comments as a spur to reexamine his approach. He wrote me separate from this website and I responded with some very constructive comments. Now it is up to him to take adequate steps toward improving the group’s performance. Given an opportunity to hear the group again, I will make that effort and do another review if it is warranted.
ajpalmer
ajpalmer@bu.edu