Skip to main content

Musical bumps

Contrast and compare two very different musical experiences this weekend.

On Saturday I was in Salisbury, to sing at a concert of music by the composer Robin Highcock. In the ancient (if much 'improved') church of St Martin, I helped contribute to an evening of very accessible, well written music. If the performances weren't always spot on perfect - with one practice we typified the motto of most of the singing I seem to do, 'never knowingly over-rehearsed' - they still sounded uplifting and even thrilling. I was particularly taken by a stunning little number commissioned by a Catholic school with the eye-widening title By the Light of Burning Martyrs.

Now jump with me, if you will, to Sunday night when I watched the results show of the X-Factor. Leaving aside the competition itself, where the British public once more demonstrated what a poor judge of musical talent it is, the most interesting bit for me was judge Cheryl Cole's performance of her new single.

This was impressively and dramatically staged, with Ms Cole demonstrating some effective Madonna/St Vitus Dance style moves. However two things came across strongly. One, the song was rubbish. Simply boring. And two - she's not a particularly good singer. When you think about it, it's rather dangerous appearing on a show with lots of big voices, and proving to have a nice, but frankly underpowered one yourself. Of course, Ms Cole came from such a talent show, but in a group where individual vocal power wasn't essential. On her own, the limitations show.

It was inevitable that the show's presenter, the manically effusive Dermot O'Leary, should ask Simon Cowell what he thought of the performance. But it was rather sad that Mr Cowell, who likes to give the image of putting honesty above personal feeling, felt the need to go into sales promotion mode. If he'd just heard a contestant he would have ripped them apart for that performance. But no, he limited himself to saying it was an amazing performance or some such weasel words.

It's the way the world is, and I can't suggest any way of changing it, but I can't help compare the Saturday evening, where an audience of about 30 heard some superb compositions, occasionally sung extremely well, with Sunday's mediocre performance. The laurels and the cash go the opposite way to the talent. Maybe now I understand John and Edward.
Labels:

Comments

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