Skip to main content

O Sing Unto the Lord: Andrew Gant *****

This is one for the music history fans, and/or those with an interest in church music. This definitely includes me - I've sung in choirs since I was about 10 and this kind of music is amongst my favourite listening. Andrew Gant does a brilliant job of digging into English church music throughout history, though almost inevitably the biggest focus is from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries.

This might seem a very dry subject, but Gant brings it alive, helped by his even drier sense of humour. This is obviously a matter of taste, but if you find amusing his remark on Prince Albert's compositions 'He certainly did not possess a strong enough musical personality to overcome the prevailing tendency to write bad Mendelssohn, but he did it quite well. His Te Deum and Jubilate contain some quite good bad Mendelssohn,' you will enjoy it as I did.

Inevitably the Reformation and subsequent switches of England between protestant and Catholic features heavily with its fascinating impact on composers and their work - particularly complex during Elizabeth's reign, when a staunchly Catholic composer like Byrd was able to keep his balance (and his head) by being considered a sufficiently impressive musician that he was allowed to get away with much that might have end the career or life of another. The basics of that were familiar to me, but a lot of the period through to the Victorians was new. Music we would consider everyday now like hymns and their tunes (which Gant points out even turn up as football chants) really only started to come together towards the end of the eighteenth century (and weren't technically legal for use in Church of England services until 1820), while Anglican chant, familiar to any choral evensong fan was primarily a nineteenth century innovation - along, of course, with much of the Christmas repertoire.

The twentieth century and beyond gets rather summary treatment. In part I think this is fair. As Gant points out it was a time of splintering. Where almost all earlier periods had specific styles and approaches, most twentieth century church composers very much did their own thing. I think Gant could have put a bit more into analysis of the development of worship songs (rather outside his comfort zone, I suspect, though he says some positive, or at least fair things). 

A couple of small negatives. The book is a bit too long. While prepared to mention quite a few unfamiliar names from, say, the Tudorbethan period, it sticks to the well-known in Victorian and Edwardian times, ignoring those who were very popular then but have pretty much disappeared. For example, I was disappointed not get a mention of Caleb Simper whose sheet music sold incredibly well (over 5 million copies) and was a staple of many country and colonial churches. The illustrations are also irritating - they were clearly designed for plates, so are bunched together in two lumps, but are just printed on ordinary pages, so could have been placed near the text they illustrate to much greater effect.

I realise that the readership of a book like this is relatively limited. But if, like me, this kind of music plays an important part in your life, then it is an absolute must to own.

You can buy O Sing Unto the Lord from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

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...

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...

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...