I didn't know what to make of this Worcester service - it seemed a curate's egg to me.  I thought they did very well with the opening Bach, and indeed with the (abbreviated) psalm.  But they did not make the best of the Tomkins - in particular, they didn't quite seem to have the solo resources for a verse setting.  I had not heard the Villette anthem before - I felt it was not his finest hour, but the choir didn't really argue his case strongly.  The Lucas Responses were neither here nor there:  it's the second week running that we've had Responses by the resident DoM - can we draw any conclusions from that?

Last time I was in Worcester cathedral, a few weeks ago, the choir was singing in temporary stalls at the east end of the nave.  There was some hazardous scaffolding in the Choir area, presumably associated with work on the organ.  I don't think the relocation changes much, but I mention it for info.

I do hope your words above, DracoM, were not loaded with too much irony - or even sarcasm.  I prefer to be cautious, partly because my own musical knowledge and experience are limited - surely all our words about music have their limitations? - but also because ---

---(1) whatever sounds may emanate from a CE, they presumably represent the very best that the choir can deliver 'live' after much hard work.  Our cathedral choirs exist on a knife-edge:  they are financially vulnerable, they have recruitment problems, they are close to over-worked, they often depend on the commitment of the very young.  It would not be unreasonable for a professional critic to be harsh over any commercial enterprise by such a choir (eg a CD), but any amateur assessment of a daily service should surely take into account the problems.  I am not absolving any dishonest judgement in a 'private' forum such as this, but merely suggesting that all factors be taken into account.  Sometimes kids are bussed in from suburbs to sing Byrd:  is it useful to comment they are wasting their time?  Would we really rather they stuck with rap?

---(2) performances do not have to be perfect to serve the composer's intentions.  An off-topic example:  today I listened to Opera North's "Peter Grimes";  it did not match up to my LP recording with Peter Pears;  even so, I sat transfixed indoors on a sunny afternoon, close to tears throughout Acts 2 and 3.  Great music has its own momentum, and needs only a fair (ie appropriate, workmanlike, largely unblemished) performance to work its effect.  Similarly, I find the music in CE invariably enhances the service.  To that extent, it always merits a certain level of respect.  Therefore any critique of performance standards has to be shaded.  Personally, I start from the standpoint that we are lucky CE happens at all, and extra-lucky that it regularly happens so gloriously well.  I am absolutely convinced that all church musicians are striving for the highest possible standards -- it is probably a religious issue for them!  Thus I condemn only with the utmost reluctance.

Well, there's a viewpoint.  No doubt I'll be ignored or flamed --- again.  But I would welcome discussion.

Thank you for your response, S-S.  Two points arise.....

First, I agree about the spirit of competition.  It is inevitable.  But it is one thing for the Gloucester choir to think themselves a better choral outfit than Worcester (say), but it is quite another for the Worcester choir to hear that same news from a third party sitting in judgement.  The competition is best left to the competitors.  However, I do admire those who post in a CE thread whose expertise can actually put a finger on why a choir succeeded or failed to please.  Such informed opinion can either be accepted or rejected by the choir in question, and perhaps argued over in a forum like this.

Secondly, it seems that almost every week someone questions the BBC's sound engineering of CE.  It is rare indeed for CE to come from a maiden venue, so how has this (apparent) deficiency come about?  It's unlikely that a cathedral's acoustic will have changed much over the last 80 years, while microphones and other technical bits have surely improved.  So what's going on?  Are the producers over-playing their hand?  Too much control freakery?  Any views?

I wonder why this thread wasn't started on the 'Choral Output' board.