Did anyone else see this tonight?

If so, I'd be interested to hear what people thought...

Just wish we could have actually heard the choirs sing a bit more...

I enjoyed it.

I thought that there was none of the being cruel / ridiculing people that has become part of many of the TV talent shows.

I thought that it showed the joy that all kinds of people can get out of making music.

I think that it might make a wider group of people become interested in singing as part of a choir.

Wish my school had entered!

Doubt we would be good enough though, a lot of really good singers have no interest in our choir so it lacks quite a bit.

Some of those choirs were amazing! The one that sat in a circle was a joke though. Pretty good overall for amateurs.

I liked the fact that 'the world and his wife' entered and that it emphasised how much music making is an important part of Everyman's life.....young, old, male, female, black, white, brown, pink, able bodied or otherwise. The fact that the girls' choir (the ones with the grown -up dresses and the headmistressy MD) didn't make it through, shows I think, how far music has thrown off that dreadful regulated, restrictive approach. - (Reminded me too much of the chosen few at school )

I agree with that, though in the end, the programme made me so angry, I switched it off I thought that the judge's opinions and treatment of the Amabile Girls' Choir was dreadful. Besides the fact they chatted all the way through it, I thought that Susan Digby's opinion of their outfits was completely wrong. They look brilliant, and in my experience, young people love to dress up, and for something like that, having matching outfits was great. The fact she said that young people should look like young people seemed to me to be completely irrelevant. I felt so sorry for Charlotte Jackson, and I'm glad that she said afterwards that she wouldn't be changing anything - good for her!

Overall, I assume that they are not looking for the best choirs (they actually said they wanted a diverse range). I was particulary impressed by the choir from Belfast. As usual though, it is an entertainment programme, and it seems to be that the actual music making didn't matter much (i.e. some of the choirs they let through couldn't even sing in tune). Now, I'm all for raising the profile of choral singing, but this isn't the way to do it. If this programme aims to be representative of choral singing in this country, then it has gone horribly off course. Were they required to all sing arrangements of pop songs?

The one choir I really liked, and would have liked to have heard more of, was the one's who were an inside out choir and wanted to sit in a circle. They were actually quite good - OK, not to everyone's tastes, but at least they were attempting to do something different. I felt that the judges treatment of them was simply awful. However they perform, and whoever they are, they should not be laughed at. Those three judges should know better than that. Maybe if they'd bothered listening instead of giggling behind their hands like little schoolchildren, they'd have actually appreciated what it was that choir was trying to achieve.

I shall not be viewing again.

David

David, like yourself I wanted to switch off when the girls' choir did not go through. They were my favourite. I don't think much of the standard of the choirs to be honest. It seems the judges are only looking for choirs that are really entertaining, mostly what I call pop choirs. I don't think I will be watching again either.

If this programme encourages more people to discover what joy can be got from singing, it can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

I completely agree with David. They give statistics about there being more choirs in the UK than chip shops, but surely a large proportion of these are church choirs, for which this programme has no time? The vast majority of the choirs sung pop arrangements - what about the wealth of classical choral music around? Does this not count?

There were a few parts of the programme that made me particularly annoyed. Firstly, the way they showed the church choir at the beginning and said "if you think all choirs are like this, think again?" was very insulting to church choirs who put in an awful lot of work to get where they are. Secondly, as David said, the treatment of some of the choirs was appalling. They treated the choir who were sitting down terribly. Why shouldn't they sit in a circle? What right do the judges have to ridicule them about it? And then to chatter and snicker throughout was really insulting. And as for the comments about the Amabile Girls' Choir, as far as I'm concerned wearing outfits like that is empowering. It aids togetherness and makes the event feel special. Not all young people want to wear hoodies on stage. I would feel terribly self-conscious if I had to perform wearing everyday clothes. And lastly, we barely got to hear the choirs sing. The whole programme was chat and discussion - where was the music?

I agree that it did show the thrill of choral singing and joy of music, but overall the programme left a lot to be desired.

CP

What did you think, Cyrilla?

I don't think the recruitment for this programme was a great success - I received about four phone calls asking if Valhalla Choral Society would like to take part


From what I've heard, the audition process was much the same...


Argh, choir uniform. If there's any one subject which can divide a choir, it's uniform. Forget anything financial or musical, it's what they wear that gets most people's goats.

I wasn't expecting anything subtle, quiet or slow to do well, though the Moon River choir proved what could be done. I felt for Amabile - maybe it was the case of wrong competition, wrong repertoire. I feel we need to find the balance between the "everyone's opinion is just as good as everyone else's plus dismissing/talking over the judges" attitude and the set of "cringing, fearful, deferential" attitudes more prevalent in the past.
I also agree with the lack of respect shown to the sitting choir. A TV show's not a TV show unless some people have cried and some have been laughed at.

It was wrong to discriminate on the grounds of dress when the singing was so good. I thought there was some partiality shown - the all black choir got through when their tuning was dreadful and the sound was harsh and hard.

Nevertheless it was encouraging to see how much singing is going on in the UK!! Excellent.

....also I was very moved by the performance of "Moon River" by the Belfast choir who had 50% disabled members. Their phrasing and expression was amazing even though there were some tuning problems. I don't normally like that kind of music, but I found it a very uplifting choir to listen to even though they choir needs to sound a little sweeter on the loud high notes, it was wonderful to see such an inclusive choir sing with such tenderness and feeling.

I agree entirely.

I enjoyed it ... but then i've known it was due to air for a while now and have been looking forward to it

I'm not sure what the editing is going to be like, though... I think it's a shame to just hear snippets of some performances ( sometimes started from quite an odd place in the piece and not showing off the best bits of the performance - judging from the website material, that is )

I have really enjoyed watching/listening to the choirs on the "Last choir standing" website - there's quite a bit of footage on the website, it has audition recordings etc and is well worth a look.

I had started a thread on the voice forum before Cyrilla kindly alerted me to this
I loathed it because I have no respect for the judges I totally endorse the views of Mr Barton in this

I thought the judging was partial and based on whether the choir made television rather than good music

I am afraid I am elitist where singing is concerned even though I teach rock and jazz and blues

I thought it was a terrible programme. There was hardly any singing which I though was bizarre! The programme seemed to be about the personalities of the judges which were hardly, I thought, strong or interesting enough to merit that sort of over exposure. I have my points of agreement and disagreement with the judges, probably like most people who watched, but I would have liked to have heard much more commentary about technique rather than 'this is what I feel,' or 'this is what young people ought to wear' and what the criteria for getting a yes are and how the choirs measured up to it. It was all so arbitrary.

I thought the treatment of the choir who wanted to sit in a circle was unbelievably rude. Why shouldn' they sit in a circle - that is what they do! They were only shown so we could see the judges sitting there snidely smirking. Why couldn't the producers show another of the choirs. Why was it deemed to be good television to present that? If I was involved in this programme I'd be rapidly trying to disassociate myself from it.

Television at its very, very worst.

Are we all going to write and complain to the BBC?

David

It allows a few pompous people (who I've never heard of) to express their opinions (not us, I hasten to add), like a watered down version of America's got talent. It is good that it raises the profile of classical music and singing. Howver, what is the point of it?

That is true. I agree entirely.

......however I still enjoyed listening to the Belfast choir which included many disabled people. It was worth it just to know there are groups like that, with dedicated leaders who inspire people to love and enjoy singing.

I would raise an issue about the handicapped choir I think out of respect for the people participating they should not be given special treatment or patronised I am not saying they will be but knowing TV ( I used to be an actor ) I would not put it past them

I am a registered partially sighted person When I was working as a singer it was never an issue I was either good enough as a singer or not I have 10 percent vision in my right eye and 15 percent in my left I can just about function

No concessions were made to me about learning and performing material - coaches and conductors were just as rude to me as they were to anyone else and I preferred it that way I am sure the NI choir feel that way as well

I haven't seen this programme - and judging from your comments I'm not likely to watch it because I've got more respect for my blood pressure!

However, I suppose what some of you have said highlights the fact that the word "choir" conjures up such a diverse set of groups who are all choirs in their own way.

Perhaps they should have categories - or do they do that already - you know - traditional choir, pop choir etc, and then choose one at the very end? But I do think some sort of musical baseline should be required - at least singing in tune.

They interviewed the presenters on the BBC's Breakfast Time this morning, and on the the presenters asked them whether they thought traditional choirs were at a dissadvatage in this competition - the answer was very definately 'no!'

Well in my opinion the choir which included handicapped people were definitely NOT given any partiality - they really did deserve to go through to another "round" on musical merit. In fact, the participants were very clear during the programme about them that this was not a choir with "disabled people" in it - but rather a choir just like any other, but one which *enables* people with a disability to participate.

I found listening to them very uplifting - nothing cheesy about it or anything. But I don't think they will get through another round technically - but it was the fact that they sang with their heart and soul which touched a chord deep within.

Having watched the full programme yesterday (I only watched half of it last week) I am tending to think the BBC are using this programme partly as ploy to push their own personal agenda regarding their views on human sexuality.

Anyhow, at least the public have the final vote when the last six choirs are left.

Care to elaborate on this? I didn't see the programme so I don't understand this comment.

Lis

I'm intrigued as to what you mean too. I did see the show - do you think that the Brighton Gay Men's Chorus should have been excluded?

For someone who claims not to be homophobic that's a somewhat homophobic statement! I'm not accusing you of anything though, I guess we all have our own opinions!

In my eyes them being gay makes them no different to any other choir - just a group of people that enjoy singing

Anyway, I bet straight people get up to stuff too




Edit I do wish I was better at expressing what I'm trying to say, but never mind.

But you don't have to watch "what they get up to". Honestly, isn't it odd that you look at a group of people singing and seriously jump to what they do in the bedroom?!

Does "what they get up to" affect their singing voice?

Actually I don't like the word homophobia either, because it makes you feel that people who are anti-gay can't help it... Honestly I think it's just an irrational prejudice as bad as racism, and it makes me furious.

Good Lord! What an extraordinary attitude! Would it have been OK if they'd been called something less 'in your face'? Or would you somehow be able to tell?

Should I demand that the gay members of my choir leave immediately? It would be a shame to lose the star tenor, amongst others. Should I sack the first violinist in my string quartet? Or, going by your attempted justification about disapproving of all people in 'wrong' relationships, do I need to ensure I never perform with anyone who's 'done it' before marriage? Hmm - does it make it OK if they get married eventually? Hope so, otherwise that's my performing career finished.

K.

The thing is why do we need to identify it as a gay choir in the first place? Same as why do we need to identify there is a disabled choir. They are all choirs in the end.

Well that's true. I guess though, I treat choir as a social club, as well as a place to go and have a good sing and so on... It would be difficult for a gay person to be friends with someone who thinks they're scum right? Or holds the attitude expressed earlier on this thread... So, might as well make it perfectly clear in the title of the choir.

What annoyed me about last week's programme was the comment by one of the judges (Russell I think) of "Great choreography!!"

Choreography?? I thought it was a choir not a dance troupe!!

I agree with TonyTeech about Amabile in the first program and the girls' school in the second - just 'cos they weren't dressed as some of the other choirs (in what seemed to me to be fancy dress in some cases!) doesn't mean that they can't sing! They patently could sing, probably better than others that have got through to the last 15.

To a large extent I agree with Rhoda - not the anti-gay sentiments, but the feeling that the BBC and therefore also the judges are looking for a certain type of performance rather than a certain standard of singing.

I must admit to partiality though, some of daughter 1's friends and schoolmates are in the choir from Ysgol Glanaethwy, so naturally we're rooting for them.

Will probably miss tomorrow night's episode as travelling from Stalybridge - better run off and set the digibox now before I forget......

I'm curious as to why this should annoy you. Should musicians always be static? Should the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra give up their habit of entertaining their audiences with appropriate choreography?

I have to admit that I'm bored with the tradition of classical musicians all having to sit there static and po-faced at all times. I speak as one, but one who also plays in a few big bands. And big bands are sooo boring if all they do is stand there, po-faced, 'playing the music'. If a colleague of mine in an orchestra plays a blinder of a solo, why should I not be allowed to smile at him/her, and use body language to say "well done". If the orchestra is playing dance music, well, I want to move. But tradition says I mustn't. So I don't. Boring.

I'm not saying that we should dance the conga while doing the Mozart Requiem, of course ... but if the movement/choreography is appropriate, what's the problem?

Well, if all we wanted out of singers was a 'certain standard of singing', a certain singer called Billie Holliday wouldn't have got very far ... a range of only an octave, and poor vocal technique. But she could communicate like no one else. We are all performers ... not just singers, or instrumentalists, or even just musicians. Sometimes the technique doesn't matter, because the performance has something more to say ... think of Alfred Cortot, for instance, or Miles Davis. This programme obviously has not set out to be another 'Sainsbury's Choir of the Year' - can't we just celebrate the diversity of performing styles that it is illustrating?

(Apologies, I must be in combative mood - I guess I need to let off steam having spent three hours sat in a pit playing My Fair Lady tonight, with another six hours of it tomorrow!)

with your sentiments but must admit to not having seen the programme at all.

Sentiments regarding the gay men's choir though seem very strange to me. They're proud that they're gay, which is fine by me, but surely if you are watching them singing what they do in their own time is really their own business. I imagine it won't affect your every day life once the programme (or indeed their performance) is over.

I don't think there is a problem with them saying they are a gay group, any more than a group advertising that they are from a certain area or a schoolteachers' choir or fishermen's choir etc.

Surely it's the singing/performing that's important in this situation?

Thank you - that is what I meant.

I am not against the gay choir existing or them meeting together to sing and perform - they have every right in a free society to do so.

....it's just I think that the BBC are using them to promote a personal agenda.



I take the point DCM made about the Disabled Choir, but I have to say, they had some musical talent (in my humble view, though their performance wasn't perfect, but they do have a degree of musical excellence in their interpretation, and they deserve it on musical grounds, not because we all feel sorry for them).

I hope that helps, and thank you for all your views. I do understand your points, but I hope that you can understand mine a little better too now.

Thank you - that is what I meant.


Let me put it this way, if there was a musically mediocre Brighton Paedophile Men's Choir and a musically mediocre Brighton Adulterer's Straight Choir in the BBC competition I would feel exactly the same about watching them and decide that the BBC are just pushing such a choir to promote for their own political ends, rather than promoting musical excellence.

I take the point DCM made about the Disabled Choir, but I have to say, they had some musical talent (in my humble view, though their performance wasn't perfect, but they do have a degree of musical excellence in their interpretation, and they deserve it on musical grounds, not because we all feel sorry for them).

I hope that helps, and thank you for all your views. I do understand your points, but I hope that you can understand mine a little better too now.
[/quote]

No, not really. Not when you start equating being gay (which, last time I checked, hurts no-one) with being a paedophile (which is rightly illegal and wrecks lives) or being adulterous (which betrays trust and hurts families).

I know I should drop this tangent, but I don't know if you realise how offensive it is to equate homosexuality with paedophilia, and I am honestly shocked (and quite shaken) by the fact that an apparently educated person could hold these views.

I'll try & stop reading this thread now for the sake of my sanity. Shame though - as a member of a previous R3 / Sainsbury Choir of the Year, I'm finding it an interesting if slightly bonkers contrast of a competition!

Rhoda I've found your 3 posts to be offensive and I just wanted to get my views in.



They have the same right to appear on the programme as anyone else - their sexuality is no relevance. I haven't watched the programme but from reading posts on here I understand that a lot of the choirs who haven't gone through have been good and the ones who have appeared have been more mediocre. Why should the Brighton Gay Men's Choir only be able to perform in gay clubs? Does that mean completely straight choirs should only be allowed to play to audiences full of straight people?



So you think all of these people in 'wrong relationships' (in your eyes only) need to be rehabilitated. Being gay or having 'wrong relationships' (whatever they are?) isn't some kind of illness that can be cured. But if you believe strongly in rehabilitation why don't you consider some so that your eyes can be opened to see that they are all just people like you. What you're saying is just as pathetic and outrageous as racism - it's completely needless!



So you are putting gay people and adulterers (admittedly what they do is wrong [adulterers]) in the same class as paedophiles? They are all just as bad as each other eh?



Oh that's ok then, you're not prejudice at all. Probably, if you even know they're gay, you're just sickened at the thought of 'what they get up to'.

Sorry for keeping off topic but it makes me so angry that people still think like this, and it saddens me that a lot of people do still think like this. The TV should reflect the culture we live in and we live in a society of a mixture of cultures - but they are all people and I don't see why some have to see a difference.

Lucid

[...]
I hope that helps, and thank you for all your views. I do understand your points, but I hope that you can understand mine a little better too now.
[/quote]

No, not really. Not when you start equating being gay (which, last time I checked, hurts no-one) with being a paedophile (which is rightly illegal and wrecks lives) or being adulterous (which betrays trust and hurts families).

[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly with KTViola. There is a considerable difference between being a gay person and being a child abuser or someone who breaks up families! I am absolutely gobsmacked that you feel this is a fair comparison.

However, as has been seen several times on the forum, there is no point in trying to debate this as no doubt it will firstly totally derail this thread and secondly do nothing over than aggravate all parties concerned (and anyone who may be reading!). I imagine any attempt at arguing the point will simply end in a barrage of comments about people being too liberal or some such.

I can tell definitively you that I don't and will never understand your point of view.

I do think the whole show is an absolute sham and I would find it insulting to put years of passion and musical training under this kind of spotlight. There is little focus on the musicianship and more focus on the sexuality of the performers. The whole thing makes me feel extremely nauceous.

And I'm sorry to be so rude, but I find that there is too many of these worthless opinions on the forums. Too many times I have felt outraged by the pathetic and un-necessary comments. I understand entirely people are entitled to their opinions, but there are ways and means of conducting them.

Calm down everyone!!! - you're all free to your own views and opinions and I respect that.


I am not comparing it at all, though I can understand how you think I am. In the heat of the subject you're missing my point which is: that the BBC are using this programme to push their own personal agenda on human sexuality (they do it all the time - particularly on radio). [I am not going to express anymore about my subjective views and beliefs about openly gay men who celebrate their sexuality because I can see it is causing pain and that's not what this Forum is about).

Nevertheless, I stand by my original statement and believe it to be a true and objective fact that the BBC are using this programme to promote a personal agenda. (But let's forget the subjective and emotive "rights" and "wrongs" of different human sexual lifestyles).


Fair do's. I think it is because my understanding and boundaries concerning human sexuality are different to yours. You are entitled to your understanding and I am entitled to mine - it's all about diverstiy I guess!

I do think the presenters see themselves as "championing" minority causes - and I'm sure their motives are good (eg, black choirs, disabled choirs, gay choirs, old ladies choirs, old men's choirs, etc) -

..... but I would rather the BBC were upfront about it and say exactly that this is what the programme is about rather than trying to pass it off as a programme which has any great musical qualitiy about it. (As the saying goes "you can fool some of the some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" as I think this thread has shown).

I won't be watching it again, though I will be interested to see which choir wins. ......and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the gays. LOL.

No hard feelings folks. I didn't mean to deliberately open a can or worms (I am just trying to objectively put my finger on what is not clicking with this programme!) and I apologise for any offence caused.

Someone on the BBC comments page on the show's website made some excellent points about the show which I'd like to share:

"For all those who are complaining about not enough singing - Last Choir Standing is NOT a show about music - it's a show about CHOIRS. Singing is only a part of being in a choir. To virtually anybody who has ever been in a choir, the community/family/support environment comes before the singing and I think the BBC are capturing this beautifully. Choirs are made up of real people - being a member of a choir is such an amazing source of strength when life becomes difficult. The BBC are showing us communities of people who are there for each other - an aspect of our culture that seems to be being eroded year on year. What a fantastic way to show the UK that joining a choir is soul-enriching and potentially life-changing"

I think it is very important to realise that the BBC is not trying to replace or make another Choir of the Year - what would be the point? Radio 3 and BBC 4 already do this very well, there's no need for another. This is an entirely different offering which can only have a positive effect on amateur music making in the UK. They have specifically said that they are not looking for the 'best' choir but the 'nation's favourite'.

This show is looking to please the audience that watches I'd Do Anything or Any Dream Will Do, not to mention those watching X Factor and Britain's Got Talent. Do you really think this audience would sit through hours and hours of Mozart? This is Saturday night, feel-good telly that doesn't make anyone look too silly, doesn't belittle anyone and celebrates something that up until now has been seen as a rather naff, snobby or geeky hobby. I for one will be watching with delight - never mind the dodgy notes, these are enthusiastic amateurs and they deserve to be celebrated.

I really enjoyed this programme and really got a lot out of the masterclass on the net...however is it me or is the masterclass facilitator never in tune for the duration of the exercises

Excellent points! And for most people, 'serious' choir music is not what will get them hooked on singing or interested in choirs, but it may prove a way into it in the long run. And if it doesn't, surely allowing people to enjoy making music on whatever level it gets them
can only be positive?

It seems that its not really a programme aimed a musical audience, but an audience seeking to be entertained.

I have to say that I disagree with that. I actually think that people want to hear 'serious' music; there is a real yearning for 'good' music out there. I think that this programme in some ways has the potential to put people off choirs and singing. They are singing the kinds of things they think will appeal to the majority. I actually think they are wrong in making the assumptions they do.

Oh dear, please can we avoid a 'good music' versus 'popular music' debate? I've just watched Episode 3, and thought it was an excellent programme. OK, let's ignore the overdone hype (hmm, guess that's tautology) of the competition format, the things that struck me were:

- the constructiveness of the judges' comments - following the 'best practice' of examiners, they were offering good advice on what was already outstanding in each choir, what each choir needed to focus on to improve further, and praising where progress was evident. The judges, like the best examiners, really want the choirs to perform well. Even the comment that despatched the eliminated choir was an encouraging one.

- the wonderful variety of approaches to choir singing on show. Let's just accept that this competition is looking for a choir that can do 'showtime' as well as the singing bit. Horses for courses. But it's clear that the judges are looking for arrangements in which the choirs can demonstrate core choral skills, including blend, tuning, and passion. They're not looking for mere backing groups for soloists.

- the excellent idea of having all the choirs singing together at the start - they couldn't have brought that off without great co-operation between the choirs, and suggests great cameraderie ... but then, of course, that's what choirs of all types promote so well.

Can we not just celebrate a programme that can only encourage more people to take up singing? For some a church choir or local choral society will be 'their thing', for others, it will be something more like what we see in this programme. Hurrah, say I. It's music. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but it's music.

I think the 3rd episode was the best in the series so far, from a music point of view.

Yes we did have some chatty bits talking to the choruses and their backgrounds, but I found that really interesting.

The right chorus went out (I won't say who, in case people haven't seen it yet) and the right 2 choruses went through, although I disagreed with the order they were chosen.

With regard to the comments about the Brighton Gay Men's Chorus being 'flaunted' by the BBC. What??? Their name reflects who and what they are, just as I'm in the Vale Connection Ladies Barbershop Chorus. I'm a lady, living in the Vale (of Evesham) area, singing Barbershop music. They could have dropped the word Gay from their title for the show, and you'd have been none the wiser. They are a load of guys who have a something in common, just like the Fighly (sp?) fisherman's choir and the Herefordshire Policeman's choir (although there is a rumour that they aren't all in (or were in) the police.

It probably took some of those guys a lot of guts to be on the show (I wouldn't be surprised if some of them only came out to their families by being seen on tv), but that isn't the point. They are a good chorus, and their ability got them through the first two rounds, not the fact that they are gay.

It's all gone very quiet here, which is surprising now that they've reached the heats, with a better format, and more consistant judging.

Bit disappointed that Herefordshire Police didn't get through, but aprt from that, seems appropriate choices now.