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.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney5 July 2009 at 12:39

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg6 July 2009 at 11:30

    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

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 2010 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 exp
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more