The Auditory

I am not a fan of Eric Whitacre, and I normally would not give him the time of day in a blog post but I have so many negative feelings about his comments on Gramophone’s list of the 20 Greatest Choirs in the world.  Of the twenty choirs, thirteen are British.  Not a single American choir made the list.  Before I tear apart what appears to be a defense or justification by Whitacre, I want to take a look at the list, which seems to completely ignore so much that has happened in choral music during the last decade.

Topping the list was John Eliot Gardiner’s Monteverdi Choir.  I did not realize we were still in the 20th century.  What has the Monteverdi Choir done in the past decade that would enable it to not only make the list but also push it to the top?  While it pleases this early music freak that people are listening to the Monteverdi Choir, I want to let you know, you are about thirty years too late.  The list also seems to include ensembles that have a very narrow repertoire.  The Monteverdi Choir along with The Cardinall’s Musick, and the Tallis Scholars each focus on particular time periods and even regions when it comes to the music in their programs.  

The inclusion of Wells Cathedral, King’s College, New College and Westminster Abbey worries me as well.  These choirs are all in the Anglican choral tradition, which has been an important part of my musical upbringing.  Despite my Anglican background, I understand that these choirs have a specific agenda and role in the church and when it comes to the issue of performance practice, these choirs too lack the versatility to perform a vast range of styles.  I do not want to hear these Anglican choirs attempt Monteverdi or Bach just like I would not want to hear the Bach Collegium Japan sing Tallis and Byrd.  Speaking of the Bach Collegium Japan, why are they missing from this list?

Whitacre argues four reasons as to why British choirs are the best.  The first is tuning, on which he never really elaborates.  Like most critics, Whitacre is not really saying much.  He then argues that Brits are the world’s greatest sight-readers.  While I am not attacking my British friends regarding their sight-reading abilities, I think that the reason music is rehearsed smoothly can be related to the fact that the same repertoire is constantly being recycled, especially in the Anglican tradition.  As for his music being read successfully by a British choir, I would have to say that the Westminster Choir or St. Olaf Choir could have easily done the same.

Whitacre’s distaste for vibrato and love of what is known as “straight tone” is most likely the primary reason he has this love affair with British choirs.  I would have agreed with Whitacre less than a year ago, but I was immature then.  It is naive to think that you can get away with this sound without harming the instrument.  I am not condoning the use of a large vibrato in choral music, but constantly enforcing a policy of senza vibrato is dangerous and may be damaging many talented instruments.  Whitacre claims that British “music-making is at once soulful and unsentimental” and “expressive without being maudlin.”  Are we listening to the same choirs?  I would love to hear a soulful ensemble among the Oxbridge choirs of men and boys.  To say that the British choirs are unsentimental ignores the fact that these choirs are sentimental institutions that only survive in their form because it is the declining state church’s last hope to draw an agnostic population to the pews.

-Juan Blanco