I listen to a fair amount of choral music, from plainchant and organum up through modern and contemporary works. I think the short answer is missing, which is that most choral music just isn’t that exciting.
The Wikipedia article for the Motet has an interesting quote which echoes the sentiment here:
> [the motet is] not to be celebrated in the presence of common people, because they do not notice its subtlety, nor are they delighted in hearing it, but in the presence of the educated and of those who are seeking out subtleties in the arts.
This quote is attributed to Johannes de Grocheio in the 1200s! That means that people have been saying that choral music is hard to appreciate for more than seven hundred years.
I totally agree - I've sung in a few choirs myself but even I myself hesitate to attend choral events sometimes. It takes effort to appreciate the depth involved, even with modern choral music (think Eric Whitacre) or even gospel choir, compared to other forms of entertainment.
I also agree with the article that understanding the blend of voices is best "when you are singing in the midst of the action" rather than on a recording. But also, that means it's hard to gain familiarity with specific songs or genre-specific styles, which is another barrier to entry.
I think there’s a big issue with the recording style used for choral music. It tends to be recorded with a far mic in an echoey room which gives the experience of hearing it in church, but I think close micing the individual sections would give more of a sense of being in the choir and really help make everything more distinct. I don’t know any choral music recorded this way, but I know that one of Tony Banks’ (keyboard player for Genesis) orchestral suites was recorded this way which I think worked well.
A recent recording of Obrecht masses had close mic, recorded in a studio usually used for pop music with very little echo, with one voice per part [1]. The effect really is quite startling. The last time choral music was recorded like this was (coincidentally another Obrecht mass) more than 30 years ago [2].
I think a lot of vocal music written around 1500 would benefit from this approach. It has been remarked that this is really a sort of sacred chamber music rather than music requiring a huge choir. The music moves too fast and it's very difficult for a big choir in a very resonant space to do Obrecht, Josquin and friends full justice.
I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing.
We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard.
We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration.
Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style:
That Byrd is very nice! The individual voices came across very well on
my IEMs.
I'm used to reverb as well, and the complete lack of reverb in these
recordings still sound a little weird to me, as if they are singing in
a closet. But even in the 15th and 16th century vocal polyphony was
likely performed (often?) in places other than the resonant nave or
choir of a large church. I read that aristocratic (or ecclesial)
patrons would have singers perform in private chambers, and
performance of votive masses at a private chapel to the side of main
space in the church would have very different (and quite dry)
acoustics.
Ha, I don't know much about Dolby Atmos and spacial placement. But from prior experience I'm somewhat skeptical about what this kind of clever DSP can do for choral music.
For example, when I learned about convolution reverb, and how it should theoretically be able to simulate the unique reverb pattern of any room, I was initially excited about the possibilities. But after trying it I was underwhelmed.
That said, I'm open to being convinced. If you know of any compelling demos of this kind of spatial placement, I'd be interested to see.
I had not heard of Nonsuch Palace, despite having a passing interest in Henry VIII and certainly a large interest in Tallis! Is it thought that Spem was performed there?
Atmos on earphones is done by manipulating the waveform that reaches the eardrum to reproduce the distinctive impulse response due to the sound bouncing off different parts of the ear as it arrives. (Come to think of it I guess that's really also a form of convolutional reverb.) I think it's cool that it can be done on earphones at all, and with head tracking the effect can be noticeable at least, but I don't think it really adds much. I find earphone listening sort of envelopingly directionless in a special way of its own that I enjoy anyway.
On a multi-speaker separates system, though, I think it's done simply by attenuating the signal to each speaker. Whether it's just that or something more sophisticated, the effect is much stronger and adds a lot more to the experience. A good system can place sounds clearly anywhere within a full dome enclosing the listener. The problem is that very few people have such a system, so the audience isn't huge. (That said, Apple Music heavily promotes spatial audio, so an Atmos Spem in Alium might reach more people just from search placement...)
What Atmos adds beyond surround sound (which itself offers untapped opportunities for Spem in Alium) is:
* It carries independent position data for up to 100 tracks, which can be edited (so you could experiment with the placement).
* It adapts to the set of speakers available at playback, rather than having a fixed track per speaker.
* It works on earphones, to some extent at least.
* It has vertical as well as planar positioning, so the "balconies" would work.
I don't know of any renaissance choral music available in Atmos. Most of Deutsche Gramaphon's new recordings use it, so there might be some good classical examples there. A listening room should have general demos that would show the effect off.
I think the Nonsuch Palace thing is just a suggestion rather than anything strongly historical. Wikipedia mentions it [1]:
> This account is consistent with the catalogue entry at Nonsuch Palace: Arundel House was the London home of Henry FitzAlan, 19th Earl of Arundel; Nonsuch Palace was his country residence. Nonsuch had an octagonal banqueting hall, which in turn had four first-floor balconies above the ground floor; on this supposition it could have been the case that Tallis designed the music to be sung not only in the round, but with four of the eight five-part choirs singing from the balconies.
I want a recording of Spem in Alium done with a mic per singer, placed spatially using Dolby Atmos and arranged as they might have been in the octagonal banqueting hall of Nonsuch Palace: surrounding the audience (in the round) and with four of the eight choirs up on balconies.
(Say what you want about "spatial audio" on earphones - if you're lucky enough to have a good home cinema separates system it's awesome, and this would be the ultimate application for it IMO.)
I don't really know what's meant by "exciting" here, but there's plenty of choral music that's upbeat, joyful and rhythmical. For me the most enjoyable form of musical "excitement" is frisson, which choral music has in great abundance. Nothing can give you goosebumps like a good choir.
I disagree with the premise. I don't think there's anything inherently "harder to appreciate" about choral music. It's just a personal, and no doubt culturally influenced, preference. I struggle to enjoy opera and hip-hop, but that's on me. I don't go around writing articles about how hard they are to appreciate.
i think is also matter where you listen it. i think its very dull, but in a good church or room with a choir who is used to that specific place suddenly its like magic.
One thing that stands out to me about choral music is how much smoother it makes dissonance sound. Eric Whitacre is one of the most popular living composers of choral music and he routinely uses huge tone clusters in his works. When sung by a choir, his pieces sound dreamy and atmospheric, but if you were to play them on the piano they would be much more challenging to listen to. I have a theory that choral music tends to be sidelined by more "serious" classical music for precisely this reason.
As an addendum, for anyone interested in choral music I highly recommend listening to Caroline Shaw. She is among the most interesting new voices in the genre. Her piece Partita for 8 Voices [1] won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back. For a somewhat more accessible piece I also really like Its Motion Keeps [2].
dissonance is a function of the instrument (and the notes -- and other stuff), not only the notes.
so notes that are dissonant on piano are not necessarily dissonant with human voices.
a big reason for that is apparently overtone matching (and i guess that because of formants/resonant cavities of the human vocal tract, there must be a lot of matching overtones in more cases, maybe? i wonder if there is a youtube vid about that, there must be...)
I wonder if human singer instinctively chooses another note, that is not 100% same frequency as in piano. You know, there are always imperfections in piano tuning even if it's done in today's standard way(all intervals are not perfect). I'm not a piano tuner but this is my understanding. Possibly trained singers can sing in a better harmony somewhere where piano gets it (very) slightly wrong?
It's not (just) instinctive. Good choral singers adjust their tuning purposefully to match the overtones of the harmony.
For example, if you are on the fifth in the chord, you adjust the tone slightly up. If you are on the major third, slightly down. Minor third, slightly up. These rules are consciously applied by choral singers, and are even genre-defining for things like barbershop.
because pianos are real physical things, high and low strings have overtones that do not match the harmonics (and in different ways), so for stuff to "sound good" piano tuners tune on overtones and not fundamentals.
on a more fundamental level our perception of pitch (the musical psychoacoustic thing) also vary with loudness and frequency (physical reality)...
add to that, that at low frequencies we have difficulties tracking the pitch in the first place (so we rely on overtones/harmonics) -- which makes it even more important to tune on evertone (because our heads can recreate/track the note through psychoacoustic effects... so we will ear it "nice" when without the overtones we would be lost)
i might be wrong on some points since i starting learning about music 2 years ago as a hobby but i think it is mostly correct. the whole thing is fascinating.
I suspect there's something to this. I find with guitar you can do something similar if you tune by ear, getting the strings to resonate with each other rather than perfectly matching a tuner. To my ears it produces a richer sound.
Caroline Shaw is one of my favorite contemporary composers, despite her mostly writing for voice.
Smoothing out the dissonance may be a bug, not a feature. I live for timbre and new sounds. Choral music can have the feel of overly polished rocks.
And funnily enough, as I wrote this, music of Bernard Parmegiani started playing. This gave me a (mostly) good jolt, following the more atmospheric music of Alan Hovhaness.
"Miserere mei, Deus" is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard and I'm not religious nor do I understand the language it's written in. I've never thought of those as prerequisites to enjoying a piece of music.
Honestly? Join a community choir and you will very quickly learn to appreciate all forms of choral music. Choral music is about groups of humans acting in an extremely organized and coordinated way. It's a kind of collabarative effort that requires full engagement of the senses: you have to LISTEN and FEEL and EXPRESS all in rhythmic time while also WATCHING each other and your director. It takes concerted effort and everyone has to be locked in or it all falls apart....but when you check all those boxes? Absolute transcendence.
For me, the Kyrie from Tomás Luis de Victoria's Officium Defunctorum (1605) is the best piece of music ever written, period. And I say this after having listened to a lot of music of various styles.
A classic! The Allegri Miserere gets used whenever a movie soundtrack needs some sacred choral music. That floating soprano line between the sections is something else.
I once heard a live a cappella performance in a church, and the moment the voices began, it felt like the whole space wrapped around me in silence. That was when I really understood the beauty of choral music. It is not just about the melody but about how the sound blends in the room and resonates with the air. It is something you simply cannot feel through headphones.
It seems like the author is referring specifically to the style of choral music found in churches, although the same thing can be said about other choral genres like barbershop.
However, Backstreet Boys or many of the Korean idol groups do music that could be classified as choral that's highly accessible.
The main difference is drums. Music without drums or some rhythmic equivalent is less accessible.
The other main difference is not in accessibility, but economics. Is cheaper and easier to make a band with only one featured vocalist, so most professional bands do this. It's what people hear, and therefore what they identify with and therefore what they go out of their way to listen to.
I would be interested to hear some examples to see if that would change my understanding. I am expecting to hear things that are very upbeat and rhythmic though.
It doesn't have drums or their approximation, but Saunder Choi's "The New Colossus" is a very rhythmic and emotional work. The words are from Emma Lazarus' poem engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUtWfSNRRY
Another rhythmic piece that comes to mind is Wild Embers by Melissa Dunphy, setting the words of Nikita Gill, who started off as an Instagram poet. Lots of videos of this one, I'm picking one at random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCSjvGPERKQ
Another piece by Melissa Dunphy, "Dancing in Buses" is from American DREAMers. It begins with a nod to reggaeton, and tells the story of a kid crossing the border, with the bus coming under gunfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcfNiHDefBw
This is pretty much a living folk choral tradition. Maybe a bit influenced by classical church choral singing, but definitively its own thing in both vocal style and arrangement style.
In our Alpine region there is a long tradition of male choruses singing folk songs about mountain life and tales through rich harmonizations of pieces.
An example from coro SAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQZyZggh3SQ
There is, actually, a not insignificant repertoire of secular choral music although it’s lost a lot of its popularity. The liner notes for one collection of Aaron Copland’s music made a comment about how it was strange that Copland had written very little choral music given its indigenous popularity in the US in the first half of the twentieth century.
But yes, solo vocalists have been the primary mode of vocal music in English-speaking culture which presented a challenge in creating post-Vatican II liturgical music which was intended to echo the local culture (something that Dennis Day noted in his book, Why Catholics Can’t Sing). Folk and rock both tend not to work well as a format for congregational music although the former works better in my opinion. Certainly, I don’t buy Day’s argument that the obvious liturgical choice is old-school hymnody (I lean more towards incorporating more of Black gospel instead).
I wouldn’t call the various harmony-based groups like Backstreet Boys or K-Pop as choral music. What makes choral music choral is the fact that there are multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
No I wouldn't class the artists as choral artists at all, I'm just pointing out that there are examples of polyphonic singing with multiple voices in pop music, it's just that it's usually accompanied with a rhythm section. Pieces that feature choral singing can be very accessible, although acapella music usually isn't. But take the example of Pentatonix someone mentioned earlier (which isn't really choral singing either because of the lack of voice doubling). What makes them accessible is that they use beat-boxing to provide the rhythm line for the punters.
What about groups like the aforementioned Pentatonix and The Harvard Opportunes. They are quite literally multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
I'm in a choir. We just performed Mendelssohn's Elijah (translated into Spanish). Last year we performed Brahms' Deutsches Requiem in its original language. Both were exhilarating experiences.
The article is a great set of talking points for discussion, although I might not agree with all of them. Some counterpoints which might be more or less effective in rebutting the article's assertions:
- Languages are different, but in our context, many choral pieces are in Latin which is very close to Spanish, and there's also the Roman Catholic liturgical tradition; Masses were said in Latin until not that long ago. Thus, for many works and in our particular context, the language gap is not as wide as one might think.
- About the context of the works themselves, a good set of program notes or a small, brief talk prior to performance could be quite helpful.
- Why something serious should have less appeal? There's a place for everything, and the serious stuff has a place under the sun, too.
- If we "go to church less", well. We should go more often to church, then.
- Several points attest to this general idea: the best way to enjoy a choral performance is by being a choir member and perform the work itself. The second best way is to attend a live choral performance in a suitable venue.
Still, there are very good choral recordings. For example, Carus is a label with outstanding recordings, such as Rilling and the Gächinger Kantorei rendition of Brahms' Deutsches Requiem.
Choral music is boring because the tempos tend to be slow. The instruments used are generally incapable of fast passages in which notes have a sharp, clear attack. Not just fast passages, but interesting passages. Choral melodies tend to be uninteresting, because they have to be singable. If there are too many awkward leaps, only some rare genius with a perfect ear and vocal control can pull it off; yet the same melody would be nothing to a violinist, pianist, or flutist, at twice the tempo, who would have all the notes crisply articulated with good intonation and a quick attack.
In a nutshell, some people like their Western Art music when it shreds.
Otherwise, not so much.
Which is not to say that vocals as such are unexciting; far from it. The problem is that choral works often just have too many people singing. Exciting vocals mainly have one vocalist, or at most a very small number, doing something powerful with their voices, not just hitting the notes in a score.
I'd rather listen to a good barbershop quartet than some Baroque chorale---even if it's by Bach! However, if the latter were reduced to an ensemble of just four people, it could work a lot better.
E.g. this actually sound pretty cool: five ladies singing the Toccata and Fugue in Dm:
Much more fun than any random Bach chorale, sorry J. S.
But still, only to a point. Though they are hitting the notes and the harmonies are crisp, there is a lot of portamento (gliding from note to note). The attack of an instrument isn't there.
In terms of vocal power, it's a joke compared to swing, blues, rock.
In another adjacent example, I'd rather listen to art song rather than choral music. More emotional impact, usually easier to comprehend, and the singer's personality comes through.
As I recently commented on Bluesky, I want to write a contemporary choral setting of Spem in Alium (hope in another) but write the title Spem in Allium (hope in garlic) and see if it can make it to publication before anyone notices).
My coworker from years ago said it best. I’d had us listening to King’s College, Giovanni Gabrielli, etc. during Christmas. One day the station was switched to contemporary Christmas. My coworker said, “I’m really sorry, I tried to like it, but I’ll go insane if we have one more day of music without a beat.”
I think it's a lot about economics, too. Choirs of any significant size have to be amateur. It's hard enough to do a 4 person band playing popular music full-time, with 20-30 people performing more niche music it just doesn't happen.
Small group a capella is slightly more viable, but it's very "amateur coded": even very good a capella groups perform a lot of covers, and rarely stick with one genre. They perform whatever they want, which is often also things with commercial appeal, but isn't ideal for long-term musical identity building.
Take Rajaton for instance. Extremely technically brilliant, but their own compositions are a relatively small part of their repertoire (and still more than most a capella groups!). Pop music covers and Christmas music are obviously a big part of what makes them commercially viable, in addition they perform commissioned work from acknowledged choral composers (Mia Marakoff, Michael McGlynn). When they do the occasional album with good stylistic coherence and their own compositions (like 2016 Salaisuus) it doesn't look like a commerical success.
>I think it's a lot about economics, too. Choirs of any significant size have to be amateur. It's hard enough to do a 4 person band playing popular music full-time, with 20-30 people performing more niche music it just doesn't happen.
That really depends where you live. In Vienna you definitely get all-professional choirs of that size for instance.
Really? I only know opera choirs as professional choirs of that size, and they kind of don't count, since the members are also actors and opera singers (just without a main role in that particular production).
When I think about it, maybe there are also choirs were members are paid, but are only very part-time employees/freelancers?
Some music is only 'exciting' for performers ... and that's OK! Watch a performance of a late Schubert string quintet or Beethoven string quartet for example ... see how much fun they're having. My high-school chorus teacher put together a group to sing madrigals; it sure was fun, and whether there was an audience made no matter.
For choral music listeners I strongly recommend works of contemporary Polish composers Paweł Bębenek and Piotr Pałka. Some of their pieces are really innovative I'd say, without breaking the classics rules. Also their works has recently been translated quite often to other languages
Acapella is quite popular, with lots of different groups hitting >10 million views on YouTube. Pentatonix is the obvious example, but even relatively 'unknown' groups (eg university acapella) get many listens.
Summary: The mainstream ear has changed. As a result, traditional choral compositions have become less accessible to mainstream audiences, but the form of choral music remains accessible. People who participate in choral music train themselves into a traditional taste as a side-effect of participation.
Sung pentatonic music seems to be accessible to everyone from a young age.
For most things beyond that, our brains need exposure to the form to be able to appreciate it. This affects rhythm, melody and instruments.
My three-year-old hates the sound of guitar distortion. I am confident he will acclimatise to it.
Accessibility of traditional choral music will be influenced by what the audience knows. People who grew up with sung carols on at Christmas will be more open to it than people who have grown up with post-war pop Christmas.
Everyone now living in the developed world has been exposed to beat-backed major/minor easy-listening music by television, films, car radio and shopping centres. This is recent. People a hundred years ago did not have the same ear. The large choral work Elijah was easy-listening to audiences who had heard sung mass hundreds of times.
In 2025, a church music director wanting a twentieth century composer would schedule Rutter easily - Rutter writes music that suits the ear of pop Christmas. They would prefer Howells if they thought the congregation had a more traditional ear. They would schedule Messiaen only for a particular occasion.
The OP wrote - "It has struck me that most recommenders and lovers of choral music [are] themselves singers (or conductors) of choral music."
It is easy to get involved, so many people who are curious get involved. Once involved, people will find their tastes becoming traditional as a side-effect of exposure to the repertoire. This creates a running division between people who participate and the mainstream.
Note that before seventy years ago, almost everyone who loved music would have participated in it, even if only singing to young children or helping out at church. Outside royal circles, the practice of loving music yet being a pure consumer is a recent phenomenon.
Some forms of choral music will have a different relationship with pop than high-church music. For example - Gospel, accompaniment to rock songs like /Under the Bridge/ or /You can't always get what you want/. The Beatles were a mainstay of post-war pop, but /Because/ on Abbey Road has the character of a Renaissance choral work - George Martin was classically trained.
The mainstream ear may be making another shift now to more sophisticated beats with closer melodies (smaller pitch jumps) and simpler chords. If it happens, we will see evidence of it in popular Christmas music. As far as I know there has not been a new addition to that repertoire since /All I want for Christmas is You/ which is c20 pop.
It's not harder to appreciate. Opera has swept the floor regarding popular sung music from the 1700s onwards, and has created quite a barren landscape. We have to thank England and Germany for having kept the repertoire alive enough during the last 3 centuries. It's merely a cultural thing.
Yeah, I reject the premise. My enjoyment of choral music predates and led to my participation in it, not the other way round. The key moment was getting a set of Tallis Scholars CDs as a kid. I fell in love as soon as I pressed play.
There's nothing "harder to appreciate" about a group of voices vs any other way of making music.
My wife is a successful Australian-American choral composer, and riding shotgun as her career has taken off, if I were to make a few observations right before I turn in for the night:
"Choral music is harder to appreciate than say either symphonies or chamber music" - unlike orchestras and smaller string ensembles, choirs are champions of new music. The end of the article cites opera's growing popularity (an idea I'm not sure I buy into) but opera companies are famously stuck in rep from 100-300 year old, because that's what the donor class wants to hear.
The perspective painted by this article isn't all that different from the boomer who thinks there hasn't been good rock n' roll since the Beatles and the Stones. It's out there, all around you - you're just not looking in the right places. Choir music has a built-in network effect; when one choir sings a piece that goes over well, often times there are members who are in one or two other choirs, or are even choir directors themselves. There's a very dynamic scene, not even touching on religious choirs. And to people who think it's not that exciting, again I think you might just not be going to the right concerts. I've seen a choir reduce an entire audience to tears, and I've heard choral pieces that send the hair up on the back of my neck. I say this as someone who normally listens to Nine Inch Nails, Fever Ray, Queens of the Stone Age, Autechre, Aphex Twin... Some of my favorite choral works have very catchy rhythms, others border on math rock.
Choral organizations could do with better marketing; it's hard to compete in today's media landscape. One of my favorite groups, the St Louis Chamber Chorus, performs new and old works, and makes it a point to perform in unique spaces all around the St Louis area - part of the attraction to a concert is getting to go into that church you've always wondered about, or an old theater that's been brought back to life by the community. The Mid-Columbia Master Singers have performed in the Hanford B reactor site in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state. Or even seeing The King's Singers perform with Voces8 in an old mainstay like Royal Albert Hall, it's a sensory experience that can't be replicated.
And again, it's a community thing. You meet other people who appreciate this stuff when you go to the concerts and stay for the receptions. If you feel like you could make things better, become a subscriber, a major donor, join the board of one of these things. It's incredibly rewarding.
Back to marketing: outside of a few long-running groups like Chanticleer, Cantus, Voces8, the King's Singers, and so on, it's really challenging to build a brand around choral music. The industry's just not there for it. But seek out local choral concerts, talk to some strangers there, and you'll find a whole ecosystem that operates is more typically consumed live and in person, than it is via recording.
Going back to the title of the article, I suppose that does make it harder to appreciate than something you've heard in movie trailers and can stream from Spotify.
I listen to a fair amount of choral music, from plainchant and organum up through modern and contemporary works. I think the short answer is missing, which is that most choral music just isn’t that exciting.
The Wikipedia article for the Motet has an interesting quote which echoes the sentiment here:
> [the motet is] not to be celebrated in the presence of common people, because they do not notice its subtlety, nor are they delighted in hearing it, but in the presence of the educated and of those who are seeking out subtleties in the arts.
This quote is attributed to Johannes de Grocheio in the 1200s! That means that people have been saying that choral music is hard to appreciate for more than seven hundred years.
I totally agree - I've sung in a few choirs myself but even I myself hesitate to attend choral events sometimes. It takes effort to appreciate the depth involved, even with modern choral music (think Eric Whitacre) or even gospel choir, compared to other forms of entertainment.
I also agree with the article that understanding the blend of voices is best "when you are singing in the midst of the action" rather than on a recording. But also, that means it's hard to gain familiarity with specific songs or genre-specific styles, which is another barrier to entry.
I think there’s a big issue with the recording style used for choral music. It tends to be recorded with a far mic in an echoey room which gives the experience of hearing it in church, but I think close micing the individual sections would give more of a sense of being in the choir and really help make everything more distinct. I don’t know any choral music recorded this way, but I know that one of Tony Banks’ (keyboard player for Genesis) orchestral suites was recorded this way which I think worked well.
A recent recording of Obrecht masses had close mic, recorded in a studio usually used for pop music with very little echo, with one voice per part [1]. The effect really is quite startling. The last time choral music was recorded like this was (coincidentally another Obrecht mass) more than 30 years ago [2].
I think a lot of vocal music written around 1500 would benefit from this approach. It has been remarked that this is really a sort of sacred chamber music rather than music requiring a huge choir. The music moves too fast and it's very difficult for a big choir in a very resonant space to do Obrecht, Josquin and friends full justice.
[1] https://hyperion.lnk.to/cda68460 [2] https://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/dvg102.htm
I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing.
We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard.
We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration.
Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZgo2Z17nNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0iyq7AvaU
That Byrd is very nice! The individual voices came across very well on my IEMs.
I'm used to reverb as well, and the complete lack of reverb in these recordings still sound a little weird to me, as if they are singing in a closet. But even in the 15th and 16th century vocal polyphony was likely performed (often?) in places other than the resonant nave or choir of a large church. I read that aristocratic (or ecclesial) patrons would have singers perform in private chambers, and performance of votive masses at a private chapel to the side of main space in the church would have very different (and quite dry) acoustics.
Please, please, please do this! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044
I do realise that's a monumental undertaking, though :-D
Ha, I don't know much about Dolby Atmos and spacial placement. But from prior experience I'm somewhat skeptical about what this kind of clever DSP can do for choral music.
For example, when I learned about convolution reverb, and how it should theoretically be able to simulate the unique reverb pattern of any room, I was initially excited about the possibilities. But after trying it I was underwhelmed.
That said, I'm open to being convinced. If you know of any compelling demos of this kind of spatial placement, I'd be interested to see.
I had not heard of Nonsuch Palace, despite having a passing interest in Henry VIII and certainly a large interest in Tallis! Is it thought that Spem was performed there?
Atmos on earphones is done by manipulating the waveform that reaches the eardrum to reproduce the distinctive impulse response due to the sound bouncing off different parts of the ear as it arrives. (Come to think of it I guess that's really also a form of convolutional reverb.) I think it's cool that it can be done on earphones at all, and with head tracking the effect can be noticeable at least, but I don't think it really adds much. I find earphone listening sort of envelopingly directionless in a special way of its own that I enjoy anyway.
On a multi-speaker separates system, though, I think it's done simply by attenuating the signal to each speaker. Whether it's just that or something more sophisticated, the effect is much stronger and adds a lot more to the experience. A good system can place sounds clearly anywhere within a full dome enclosing the listener. The problem is that very few people have such a system, so the audience isn't huge. (That said, Apple Music heavily promotes spatial audio, so an Atmos Spem in Alium might reach more people just from search placement...)
What Atmos adds beyond surround sound (which itself offers untapped opportunities for Spem in Alium) is:
* It carries independent position data for up to 100 tracks, which can be edited (so you could experiment with the placement).
* It adapts to the set of speakers available at playback, rather than having a fixed track per speaker.
* It works on earphones, to some extent at least.
* It has vertical as well as planar positioning, so the "balconies" would work.
If you want to hear the results, a listening room would be the place. If you're in London, maybe here: https://tileyard.co.uk/stories/tileyard-london-dolby-atmos-s...
I don't know of any renaissance choral music available in Atmos. Most of Deutsche Gramaphon's new recordings use it, so there might be some good classical examples there. A listening room should have general demos that would show the effect off.
I think the Nonsuch Palace thing is just a suggestion rather than anything strongly historical. Wikipedia mentions it [1]:
> This account is consistent with the catalogue entry at Nonsuch Palace: Arundel House was the London home of Henry FitzAlan, 19th Earl of Arundel; Nonsuch Palace was his country residence. Nonsuch had an octagonal banqueting hall, which in turn had four first-floor balconies above the ground floor; on this supposition it could have been the case that Tallis designed the music to be sung not only in the round, but with four of the eight five-part choirs singing from the balconies.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spem_in_alium
I want a recording of Spem in Alium done with a mic per singer, placed spatially using Dolby Atmos and arranged as they might have been in the octagonal banqueting hall of Nonsuch Palace: surrounding the audience (in the round) and with four of the eight choirs up on balconies.
(Say what you want about "spatial audio" on earphones - if you're lucky enough to have a good home cinema separates system it's awesome, and this would be the ultimate application for it IMO.)
There's lots of choir music recorded this way. Check out Caroline Shaw's "Partita for 8 voices", for example.
D’oh! I even own this one!
I don't really know what's meant by "exciting" here, but there's plenty of choral music that's upbeat, joyful and rhythmical. For me the most enjoyable form of musical "excitement" is frisson, which choral music has in great abundance. Nothing can give you goosebumps like a good choir.
I disagree with the premise. I don't think there's anything inherently "harder to appreciate" about choral music. It's just a personal, and no doubt culturally influenced, preference. I struggle to enjoy opera and hip-hop, but that's on me. I don't go around writing articles about how hard they are to appreciate.
i think is also matter where you listen it. i think its very dull, but in a good church or room with a choir who is used to that specific place suddenly its like magic.
One thing that stands out to me about choral music is how much smoother it makes dissonance sound. Eric Whitacre is one of the most popular living composers of choral music and he routinely uses huge tone clusters in his works. When sung by a choir, his pieces sound dreamy and atmospheric, but if you were to play them on the piano they would be much more challenging to listen to. I have a theory that choral music tends to be sidelined by more "serious" classical music for precisely this reason.
As an addendum, for anyone interested in choral music I highly recommend listening to Caroline Shaw. She is among the most interesting new voices in the genre. Her piece Partita for 8 Voices [1] won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back. For a somewhat more accessible piece I also really like Its Motion Keeps [2].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDVMtnaB28E
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT1PqR97urc
dissonance is a function of the instrument (and the notes -- and other stuff), not only the notes.
so notes that are dissonant on piano are not necessarily dissonant with human voices.
a big reason for that is apparently overtone matching (and i guess that because of formants/resonant cavities of the human vocal tract, there must be a lot of matching overtones in more cases, maybe? i wonder if there is a youtube vid about that, there must be...)
I wouldn't say overtone matching, but equal temperament leads to chords that sound terrible.
That's the comprise you get from trying to play with fixed notes even though you actually care about ratios.
tldr:
big chances it does not make dissonance "smoother", but that the sound is less dissonant in the first place.
I wonder if human singer instinctively chooses another note, that is not 100% same frequency as in piano. You know, there are always imperfections in piano tuning even if it's done in today's standard way(all intervals are not perfect). I'm not a piano tuner but this is my understanding. Possibly trained singers can sing in a better harmony somewhere where piano gets it (very) slightly wrong?
It's not (just) instinctive. Good choral singers adjust their tuning purposefully to match the overtones of the harmony.
For example, if you are on the fifth in the chord, you adjust the tone slightly up. If you are on the major third, slightly down. Minor third, slightly up. These rules are consciously applied by choral singers, and are even genre-defining for things like barbershop.
because pianos are real physical things, high and low strings have overtones that do not match the harmonics (and in different ways), so for stuff to "sound good" piano tuners tune on overtones and not fundamentals.
on a more fundamental level our perception of pitch (the musical psychoacoustic thing) also vary with loudness and frequency (physical reality)...
add to that, that at low frequencies we have difficulties tracking the pitch in the first place (so we rely on overtones/harmonics) -- which makes it even more important to tune on evertone (because our heads can recreate/track the note through psychoacoustic effects... so we will ear it "nice" when without the overtones we would be lost)
funny extra fact, our ears are cavities with resonances and distortions... (some musicians exploit that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Amacher )
i might be wrong on some points since i starting learning about music 2 years ago as a hobby but i think it is mostly correct. the whole thing is fascinating.
I suspect there's something to this. I find with guitar you can do something similar if you tune by ear, getting the strings to resonate with each other rather than perfectly matching a tuner. To my ears it produces a richer sound.
yes these are called sweetened tunings.
apparently it's often done in pro recorded music.
my peterson tuner actually has these tunings embedded inside.
https://www.petersontuners.com/products/strobostomphd/
Caroline Shaw is one of my favorite contemporary composers, despite her mostly writing for voice.
Smoothing out the dissonance may be a bug, not a feature. I live for timbre and new sounds. Choral music can have the feel of overly polished rocks.
And funnily enough, as I wrote this, music of Bernard Parmegiani started playing. This gave me a (mostly) good jolt, following the more atmospheric music of Alan Hovhaness.
"Miserere mei, Deus" is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard and I'm not religious nor do I understand the language it's written in. I've never thought of those as prerequisites to enjoying a piece of music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwFXR5ett6U
Honestly? Join a community choir and you will very quickly learn to appreciate all forms of choral music. Choral music is about groups of humans acting in an extremely organized and coordinated way. It's a kind of collabarative effort that requires full engagement of the senses: you have to LISTEN and FEEL and EXPRESS all in rhythmic time while also WATCHING each other and your director. It takes concerted effort and everyone has to be locked in or it all falls apart....but when you check all those boxes? Absolute transcendence.
For me, the Kyrie from Tomás Luis de Victoria's Officium Defunctorum (1605) is the best piece of music ever written, period. And I say this after having listened to a lot of music of various styles.
Here's the piece with two great performers:
- The Sixteen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO-C_zC6KiQ
- The Tallis Scholars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOko0MqkNcc
Enjoy!
A classic! The Allegri Miserere gets used whenever a movie soundtrack needs some sacred choral music. That floating soprano line between the sections is something else.
John Browne (1453-1490) - O Regina Mundi Clara (Tallis Scholars Ensemble)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y28FW6JBd7w
I once heard a live a cappella performance in a church, and the moment the voices began, it felt like the whole space wrapped around me in silence. That was when I really understood the beauty of choral music. It is not just about the melody but about how the sound blends in the room and resonates with the air. It is something you simply cannot feel through headphones.
It seems like the author is referring specifically to the style of choral music found in churches, although the same thing can be said about other choral genres like barbershop.
However, Backstreet Boys or many of the Korean idol groups do music that could be classified as choral that's highly accessible.
The main difference is drums. Music without drums or some rhythmic equivalent is less accessible.
The other main difference is not in accessibility, but economics. Is cheaper and easier to make a band with only one featured vocalist, so most professional bands do this. It's what people hear, and therefore what they identify with and therefore what they go out of their way to listen to.
On the drums: Not entirely, I find folk tradition choral music (without drums) wonderful, but also struggle with classical and church choral.
I would be interested to hear some examples to see if that would change my understanding. I am expecting to hear things that are very upbeat and rhythmic though.
It doesn't have drums or their approximation, but Saunder Choi's "The New Colossus" is a very rhythmic and emotional work. The words are from Emma Lazarus' poem engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUtWfSNRRY
Another rhythmic piece that comes to mind is Wild Embers by Melissa Dunphy, setting the words of Nikita Gill, who started off as an Instagram poet. Lots of videos of this one, I'm picking one at random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCSjvGPERKQ
Another piece by Melissa Dunphy, "Dancing in Buses" is from American DREAMers. It begins with a nod to reggaeton, and tells the story of a kid crossing the border, with the bus coming under gunfire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcfNiHDefBw
It's part of a 25 minute series of works, here's the premiere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m3RoCHebIQ&t=193s
And more info here: https://www.melissadunphy.com/composition/72/american-dreame...
what styles are contained in folk tradition choral music? I know of sacred harp singing which can be really spectacular.
This is sacred male choral music from my region:
https://youtu.be/RpDQduUh9ao?si=JgZUaOmU9Cpbt7kI
This is pretty much a living folk choral tradition. Maybe a bit influenced by classical church choral singing, but definitively its own thing in both vocal style and arrangement style.
In our Alpine region there is a long tradition of male choruses singing folk songs about mountain life and tales through rich harmonizations of pieces. An example from coro SAT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQZyZggh3SQ
There is, actually, a not insignificant repertoire of secular choral music although it’s lost a lot of its popularity. The liner notes for one collection of Aaron Copland’s music made a comment about how it was strange that Copland had written very little choral music given its indigenous popularity in the US in the first half of the twentieth century.
But yes, solo vocalists have been the primary mode of vocal music in English-speaking culture which presented a challenge in creating post-Vatican II liturgical music which was intended to echo the local culture (something that Dennis Day noted in his book, Why Catholics Can’t Sing). Folk and rock both tend not to work well as a format for congregational music although the former works better in my opinion. Certainly, I don’t buy Day’s argument that the obvious liturgical choice is old-school hymnody (I lean more towards incorporating more of Black gospel instead).
I wouldn’t call the various harmony-based groups like Backstreet Boys or K-Pop as choral music. What makes choral music choral is the fact that there are multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
No I wouldn't class the artists as choral artists at all, I'm just pointing out that there are examples of polyphonic singing with multiple voices in pop music, it's just that it's usually accompanied with a rhythm section. Pieces that feature choral singing can be very accessible, although acapella music usually isn't. But take the example of Pentatonix someone mentioned earlier (which isn't really choral singing either because of the lack of voice doubling). What makes them accessible is that they use beat-boxing to provide the rhythm line for the punters.
What about groups like the aforementioned Pentatonix and The Harvard Opportunes. They are quite literally multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
[dead]
Carmina Burana, which used to be ubiquitous in video games and medieval movies, says it ain’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQXehmVDLc (trad)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE01DAATf6s (remix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p4qcbzKWeY (deodorant ad)
I mean it's backed up by some of the most bombastic drums and strings that the entire era produced, but sure, it's notable.
Even the softer track "Ecce Gratum" still has regular organ interludes to set the tone.
I'm in a choir. We just performed Mendelssohn's Elijah (translated into Spanish). Last year we performed Brahms' Deutsches Requiem in its original language. Both were exhilarating experiences.
The article is a great set of talking points for discussion, although I might not agree with all of them. Some counterpoints which might be more or less effective in rebutting the article's assertions:
- Languages are different, but in our context, many choral pieces are in Latin which is very close to Spanish, and there's also the Roman Catholic liturgical tradition; Masses were said in Latin until not that long ago. Thus, for many works and in our particular context, the language gap is not as wide as one might think.
- About the context of the works themselves, a good set of program notes or a small, brief talk prior to performance could be quite helpful.
- Why something serious should have less appeal? There's a place for everything, and the serious stuff has a place under the sun, too.
- If we "go to church less", well. We should go more often to church, then.
- Several points attest to this general idea: the best way to enjoy a choral performance is by being a choir member and perform the work itself. The second best way is to attend a live choral performance in a suitable venue.
Still, there are very good choral recordings. For example, Carus is a label with outstanding recordings, such as Rilling and the Gächinger Kantorei rendition of Brahms' Deutsches Requiem.
The author misses this:
Choral music is boring because the tempos tend to be slow. The instruments used are generally incapable of fast passages in which notes have a sharp, clear attack. Not just fast passages, but interesting passages. Choral melodies tend to be uninteresting, because they have to be singable. If there are too many awkward leaps, only some rare genius with a perfect ear and vocal control can pull it off; yet the same melody would be nothing to a violinist, pianist, or flutist, at twice the tempo, who would have all the notes crisply articulated with good intonation and a quick attack.
In a nutshell, some people like their Western Art music when it shreds.
Otherwise, not so much.
Which is not to say that vocals as such are unexciting; far from it. The problem is that choral works often just have too many people singing. Exciting vocals mainly have one vocalist, or at most a very small number, doing something powerful with their voices, not just hitting the notes in a score.
I'd rather listen to a good barbershop quartet than some Baroque chorale---even if it's by Bach! However, if the latter were reduced to an ensemble of just four people, it could work a lot better.
E.g. this actually sound pretty cool: five ladies singing the Toccata and Fugue in Dm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKI9VThPB4w
Much more fun than any random Bach chorale, sorry J. S.
But still, only to a point. Though they are hitting the notes and the harmonies are crisp, there is a lot of portamento (gliding from note to note). The attack of an instrument isn't there.
In terms of vocal power, it's a joke compared to swing, blues, rock.
In another adjacent example, I'd rather listen to art song rather than choral music. More emotional impact, usually easier to comprehend, and the singer's personality comes through.
"Spem in Alium" is the most beautiful piece of music in existence for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-ZAAi4UQQ
At 40 distinct melodies, it is certainly the 'grandest' piece in early English church music.
As I recently commented on Bluesky, I want to write a contemporary choral setting of Spem in Alium (hope in another) but write the title Spem in Allium (hope in garlic) and see if it can make it to publication before anyone notices).
Yes! I had a chance to sing in this once.
But it definitely suffers from every one of the reasons for obscurity listed in TFA, on steroids.
My coworker from years ago said it best. I’d had us listening to King’s College, Giovanni Gabrielli, etc. during Christmas. One day the station was switched to contemporary Christmas. My coworker said, “I’m really sorry, I tried to like it, but I’ll go insane if we have one more day of music without a beat.”
I love choral music. Maybe partially due to growing up going to church. I love hearing it in modern settings like the video games.
It feels like Enya falls squarely into the 'choral' sound despite them being 'solo'. (lots of overdubs I imagine)
And then there's African choir. Popular example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AGtd2-jv0U
I think it's a lot about economics, too. Choirs of any significant size have to be amateur. It's hard enough to do a 4 person band playing popular music full-time, with 20-30 people performing more niche music it just doesn't happen.
Small group a capella is slightly more viable, but it's very "amateur coded": even very good a capella groups perform a lot of covers, and rarely stick with one genre. They perform whatever they want, which is often also things with commercial appeal, but isn't ideal for long-term musical identity building.
Take Rajaton for instance. Extremely technically brilliant, but their own compositions are a relatively small part of their repertoire (and still more than most a capella groups!). Pop music covers and Christmas music are obviously a big part of what makes them commercially viable, in addition they perform commissioned work from acknowledged choral composers (Mia Marakoff, Michael McGlynn). When they do the occasional album with good stylistic coherence and their own compositions (like 2016 Salaisuus) it doesn't look like a commerical success.
>I think it's a lot about economics, too. Choirs of any significant size have to be amateur. It's hard enough to do a 4 person band playing popular music full-time, with 20-30 people performing more niche music it just doesn't happen.
That really depends where you live. In Vienna you definitely get all-professional choirs of that size for instance.
Really? I only know opera choirs as professional choirs of that size, and they kind of don't count, since the members are also actors and opera singers (just without a main role in that particular production).
When I think about it, maybe there are also choirs were members are paid, but are only very part-time employees/freelancers?
Some music is only 'exciting' for performers ... and that's OK! Watch a performance of a late Schubert string quintet or Beethoven string quartet for example ... see how much fun they're having. My high-school chorus teacher put together a group to sing madrigals; it sure was fun, and whether there was an audience made no matter.
I think the article missed the elephant in the room: It's slow and has almost no rhythm. No rhythm = not music.
For choral music listeners I strongly recommend works of contemporary Polish composers Paweł Bębenek and Piotr Pałka. Some of their pieces are really innovative I'd say, without breaking the classics rules. Also their works has recently been translated quite often to other languages
One of my favorite is “Deo gratias” by Johannes Ockeghem: a 36 parts canon!
The textures emerging from the the overlapping voices is just amazing…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZJQMEa9_2I
Acapella is quite popular, with lots of different groups hitting >10 million views on YouTube. Pentatonix is the obvious example, but even relatively 'unknown' groups (eg university acapella) get many listens.
What's hard to appreciate about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMLkrTJ9BZI
Sure, the HALO track has instrumental sections too but music is all about contrast.
Frankly a lot of purely monastic stuff was boring on purpose, that was the whole point. They also wore the same garb every day for decades.
Summary: The mainstream ear has changed. As a result, traditional choral compositions have become less accessible to mainstream audiences, but the form of choral music remains accessible. People who participate in choral music train themselves into a traditional taste as a side-effect of participation.
Sung pentatonic music seems to be accessible to everyone from a young age.
For most things beyond that, our brains need exposure to the form to be able to appreciate it. This affects rhythm, melody and instruments.
My three-year-old hates the sound of guitar distortion. I am confident he will acclimatise to it.
Accessibility of traditional choral music will be influenced by what the audience knows. People who grew up with sung carols on at Christmas will be more open to it than people who have grown up with post-war pop Christmas.
Everyone now living in the developed world has been exposed to beat-backed major/minor easy-listening music by television, films, car radio and shopping centres. This is recent. People a hundred years ago did not have the same ear. The large choral work Elijah was easy-listening to audiences who had heard sung mass hundreds of times.
In 2025, a church music director wanting a twentieth century composer would schedule Rutter easily - Rutter writes music that suits the ear of pop Christmas. They would prefer Howells if they thought the congregation had a more traditional ear. They would schedule Messiaen only for a particular occasion.
The OP wrote - "It has struck me that most recommenders and lovers of choral music [are] themselves singers (or conductors) of choral music."
It is easy to get involved, so many people who are curious get involved. Once involved, people will find their tastes becoming traditional as a side-effect of exposure to the repertoire. This creates a running division between people who participate and the mainstream.
Note that before seventy years ago, almost everyone who loved music would have participated in it, even if only singing to young children or helping out at church. Outside royal circles, the practice of loving music yet being a pure consumer is a recent phenomenon.
Some forms of choral music will have a different relationship with pop than high-church music. For example - Gospel, accompaniment to rock songs like /Under the Bridge/ or /You can't always get what you want/. The Beatles were a mainstay of post-war pop, but /Because/ on Abbey Road has the character of a Renaissance choral work - George Martin was classically trained.
The mainstream ear may be making another shift now to more sophisticated beats with closer melodies (smaller pitch jumps) and simpler chords. If it happens, we will see evidence of it in popular Christmas music. As far as I know there has not been a new addition to that repertoire since /All I want for Christmas is You/ which is c20 pop.
Some are amazing, others are just bland. I don't sing in chorus very often; it's not the type of music I like.
It's not harder to appreciate. Opera has swept the floor regarding popular sung music from the 1700s onwards, and has created quite a barren landscape. We have to thank England and Germany for having kept the repertoire alive enough during the last 3 centuries. It's merely a cultural thing.
Yeah, I reject the premise. My enjoyment of choral music predates and led to my participation in it, not the other way round. The key moment was getting a set of Tallis Scholars CDs as a kid. I fell in love as soon as I pressed play.
There's nothing "harder to appreciate" about a group of voices vs any other way of making music.
My wife is a successful Australian-American choral composer, and riding shotgun as her career has taken off, if I were to make a few observations right before I turn in for the night:
"Choral music is harder to appreciate than say either symphonies or chamber music" - unlike orchestras and smaller string ensembles, choirs are champions of new music. The end of the article cites opera's growing popularity (an idea I'm not sure I buy into) but opera companies are famously stuck in rep from 100-300 year old, because that's what the donor class wants to hear.
The perspective painted by this article isn't all that different from the boomer who thinks there hasn't been good rock n' roll since the Beatles and the Stones. It's out there, all around you - you're just not looking in the right places. Choir music has a built-in network effect; when one choir sings a piece that goes over well, often times there are members who are in one or two other choirs, or are even choir directors themselves. There's a very dynamic scene, not even touching on religious choirs. And to people who think it's not that exciting, again I think you might just not be going to the right concerts. I've seen a choir reduce an entire audience to tears, and I've heard choral pieces that send the hair up on the back of my neck. I say this as someone who normally listens to Nine Inch Nails, Fever Ray, Queens of the Stone Age, Autechre, Aphex Twin... Some of my favorite choral works have very catchy rhythms, others border on math rock.
Choral organizations could do with better marketing; it's hard to compete in today's media landscape. One of my favorite groups, the St Louis Chamber Chorus, performs new and old works, and makes it a point to perform in unique spaces all around the St Louis area - part of the attraction to a concert is getting to go into that church you've always wondered about, or an old theater that's been brought back to life by the community. The Mid-Columbia Master Singers have performed in the Hanford B reactor site in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state. Or even seeing The King's Singers perform with Voces8 in an old mainstay like Royal Albert Hall, it's a sensory experience that can't be replicated.
And again, it's a community thing. You meet other people who appreciate this stuff when you go to the concerts and stay for the receptions. If you feel like you could make things better, become a subscriber, a major donor, join the board of one of these things. It's incredibly rewarding.
Back to marketing: outside of a few long-running groups like Chanticleer, Cantus, Voces8, the King's Singers, and so on, it's really challenging to build a brand around choral music. The industry's just not there for it. But seek out local choral concerts, talk to some strangers there, and you'll find a whole ecosystem that operates is more typically consumed live and in person, than it is via recording.
Going back to the title of the article, I suppose that does make it harder to appreciate than something you've heard in movie trailers and can stream from Spotify.
[dead]