Is sneakiness acceptable in a good cause?

I've just heard a deep philosophical conundrum on Heart FM. No, really. Their men have been growing moustaches for some charity event, and one of them (Jez of the Wiltshire breakfast show) has added a goatee to look less of a prat. The argument that then raged was had he still grown a moustache, or once you add a goatee, is it just part of a beard? I said it was deep.

This put me in a philosophical frame of mind, which accordingly got me a touch riled up when I receiv

ed this advert from the Performing Rights Society, the UK group that collects royalties for composers and the like when their music is performed.

Now, I'm all in favour of the PRS. It's the musical equivalent of PLR, the wonderful organization that collects money for authors when books are borrowed from libraries. Composers should get their dues when their music is performed. But the reason this ad got me riled is that it seems to be sneakiness employed in a good cause.

At first sight there's nothing wrong with it. The PRS is running a competition for choirs - excellent. We should encourage singing. It's good fun and good for you. But if I were to enter I would have recorded a nice Tudorbethan anthem. And what does the small print say? 'Your performance can be a version of any genre or style of song, commercially released or arranged within the past 70 years.' Why that odd period of time? Because it makes sure the piece is still in copyright - so to be able to enter, you will have to pay a fee.

I'm sorry, that is sneaky. And really not good enough. Shame on you, PRS.

Comments

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

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

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

Search This Blog