Tonight's repertoire by The Philharmonic Chorus spans a wide range of styles and periods, ranging from Renaissance Italian madrigal to Yuglosav folksongs in English to witty contemporary pieces mixing Italians, Americans, Germans, chit-chat and pasta. But whereas this programme suggests variety, the overall result of the concert was much less colourful than I expected.

Let's take two different sets of pieces, the Brahms (19th century German Romantic choral lieder) and Monteverdi (16th century Italian Renaissance/early Baroque madrigal). The Brahmsian choruses were sung in rather cool tone, a touch steely, but nevertheless with detectable warmth. However, for Brahmsian works, I thought the choir could use a thicker, much sweeter sound corresponding to the composer's choral style as well as the theme (love) of the songs.

Language-wise, the choir's German seemed rather too soft. In fact, with almost no exception, their enunciation of the (infamous) German consonants were too mild by far. Given that it's not advisable to overdo these "-ck"'s and "-acht"'s, it is still not useful to smooth them over so much that they sound no different from other 'softer' languages. It seemed to me that perhaps the shapes of the music could be detailed a little more if the words were sung with more bite.

It didn't help also that the sound of the choir was often out of focus, too wispy at times. But having said that, I must highlight the beautiful pianissimi that The Philharmonic Chorus can produce at will, and often in these soft, loving songs. In addition, one of their hallmarks - the unity of tone across all registers - was on ample display tonight, such as in the pieces Waldesnach and Dein Herzlein mild.

Returning to the comparison, during the Monteverdi pieces, I once again found the words (now Italian) rather indiscernible. It is useful to be fairly precise in singing Italian, because the short syllables of the language allow it much more rhythmic variety and colour than, say, German. Monteverdi's writing, and the high-art style of the Renaissance, suggests vibrancy, springiness and a Botticellian vividness as well as grace. But in both the Monteverdi pieces tonight, the odd thing is that the results sounded no different from the preceeding German pieces. Surely, for all the sparkling poetry and word-painting potential of these pieces, they should be more vivid, more curving, even more tart. In fact, what was missing in the Monteverdi was found in the Hosp arrangement, Funiculi-Funicula & Angelina - here the choir throws upwards their sound in lively Italian, springing along with the melody. I grant that it's not accurate to compare the two, so different they are, but my point is that Italian music has a lot of vertical potential, a vivacity which is found in all their musical periods.

Monteverdi's runs are among some of his most colourful effects, but here they were not realised effectively. The choir sang too smooth, not unlike the Brahmsian pieces. There is not enough energy, or a kind of intensity of artistry, one of the hallmarks of the Renaissance/Baroque; nor enough architectural sparkle, an aspect of the dance-like tendencies of the period's music. It would be better, if I may say so, if the conductor adopted a quicker pace, and maybe even throw in a small instrumental continuo.

This mild-mannered approach also affected the theatrical potential of some of the pieces. Dallapiccola's dark humour in the pair of pieces of "The Unhappily Married" contain much potential for drama. The choir's rendition of the wives' and husbands' unhappy exhortations were energetic but still somewhat under-dramatised. Although there was an understanding that this was a humorous work - the performers injected much playfulness into their readings - there was perhaps an underestimation of the darkness of its text. Could we perhaps have sung it more like a "cunning old hag"?

The second half of the concert saw the choir much more in their element. Beginning with the Yugoslav folksongs by Matyas Sieber, I found them in much more solid and warm voice, as well as clearer enunciation (perhaps because from hereon, the texts are mostly English). The soloists in these pieces were excellent - Mr Shui Jiang Tian's Chinese opera-like tone actually gave his solo an edge of poignancy, while solo soprano Florence Aguilar's angelic purity was a delight. My strongest impressions came from No. 3 "Heaven Above", for its evocative beauty, beautifully performed; and the first section of No.4 "Hussars" - this latter verse is set to rather awkward rhythms, but The Philharmonic Chorus did as well as could be expected in negotiating the odd tails (of the lines).

The Choir's style is well-suited to the type of music which forms Holst's arrangement of I Love My Love - quintessential English choral music. They produced a sound very close to the "authentic" atmosphere of an English choir, and delivered the love lyrics with much poise and grace. What would be even better is if they could create an even darker, deeper, duskier sound for this piece, to produce that meadowy, distant, nostalgic sensation which distinguishes English choral music as much as seven-part string writing distinguishes English string music. Similarly, for The Three Ravens, maybe a bit more rubato, more lingering sighs and evocative pauses would benefit the interpretation.

The Choir obviously enjoyed Funiculi-Funicula & Angelina, as noted above. I particular enjoyed the ending verses, which featured much sweet singing from the gals, with nicely curved lines and gorgeous choral interplay, ending with some very pretty and flirty half-whispering. Another piece which more accurately shows The Philharmonic Choir's regular finesse is Toch's witty Valse, a piece based around "spoken music, arranging the clichés of typical American cocktail-party banter in waltz time for eight-part mixed chorus". I won't say too much about the necessary (and evident) technical capacity to sing this, but instead focus on the good solo "acting" among the chorus members, play-acting the uppity bourgeoisie chat. The singers' exaggerated vocal cosmetics were a delight, both in terms of humour as well as tone. They are so together, in fact, that the fusion of the entire piece was quite palpable - as was the deliberate use of American pronunciation.

The final Hallelujah!, evidently a showpiece, is also witty, brilliant music, featuring changing keys and chromatic progressions, which The Philharmonic Chorus delivered with fine skill. The two encores, William L. Dawson's Soon Ah Will Be Done and an arrangement of the traditional spiritual Witness by Jack Halloran, were lovely pieces as well, thrillingly performed - and we know encores often reflect their performers' best.

In summary, we can still see the choir's immense technical skill (never mind the occasional slips), both at the soloist level as well as as a community. I cannot say enough how impressive is TPC's ability to sound, sing and harmonize together - it really is one of their most beautiful traits, and a crucial basic one. What mainly disappoints me tonight is the matter of interpretation. As a conductor Mr Prinz performed his physical role adequately, but I saw nothing in terms of interpretive genius. The results were often too smoothened, short on spirit and bounce (for the first half), as well as what I might call "cultural nuances". There was also a lack in pushing interpretive conviction to the fullest (eg. if something can be sung dark, sing it really dark). So to conclude, an enjoyable and educational concert for the repertoire, but I know this choir can sing harder - and better.

CHIA HAN-LEON had three little sandwiches, a small brownie, two sausages and a small helping of quiche. The quiche was very hot.

If you wish to Add a Comment to this review, please post your comments to classical@inkpot.com.

Last TPC Concert Reviewed | Next TPC Concert Reviewed

Return to the Classical Index!... or Visit the Inkvault archives!

All original texts are copyrighted. Please seek permission from the Classical Editor
if you wish to reproduce/quote Inkpot material.