Skip to main content

The wedding singer

I'm singing at a couple of weddings today (not on my own, you understand, with a choir). It's an enjoyable experience, and you even get paid a little bit for it. What's more, in the choir you've got the best seats in the house. The friends and family spend the service staring at the backs of the bride and groom - we get to see their faces.

The choice of hymns to sing at the wedding tends these days to be fairly limited. Perm any three from Jerusalem, All things Bright and Beautiful, Morning has Broken, Give Me Joy in My Heart, Love Divine and Lord of the Dance - and you've got the selection for around 75% of them. Things get more interesting when it comes to the signing of the register. They may have a soloist or a special request... otherwise they're likely to get one of the choir's greatest hits (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).

Some weddings don't bother with the choir, but it has a dual function of adding a bit of drama to the procession and keeping the singing going in those hymns - often these days, the congregation need a lot of help. I have sung at one where the choir proved essential. The organist didn't turn up. Everyone was panicking. How would we do the bridal procession? In the end we sung something unaccompanied as she walked in - and everyone said what an original idea it was, not realizing that the organist who played the hymns was an emergency stand-in, rapidly summoned by a whispered phone call.

In case you know anyone who isn't sure about music for a church wedding, I've set up a little web page with suggestions for music and more.

Comments

  1. You sing in a choir as well as everything else you do? How wonderful! is there no end to your talents? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're too kind, Sue. I've sung since being at school, where I can get the chance.

    At the moment I also direct our village choir, because I stood still when everyone else took a pace backwards. Never having conducted anything before it was a bit of a shock. I think I'm getting better at it, but if I'm honest I'd rather just sing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope