Skip to main content

Well, I'm fascinated

We had a little expedition last night to Windsor to see Fascinating Aïda, and as ever they were brilliant. It must be getting on for 20 years since we first saw this unique singing group, and the experience gets funnier every time. It's rather hard to describe their style, but if you imagine a cross between Tom Lehrer and Victoria Wood, but more musically adept and ruder, you'd be getting fairly close.

Rather than go on and on about what was in it, I've a couple of clips from YouTube of songs they did last night - the only problem is that this is with an earlier soprano (the other two are the same), and the new one is significantly better. That makes little difference in this first number, however, as the soprano is definitely not the star.


I can't show you my favourite part of last night's show, which was a supposed middle European (Romanian?) song cycle, rendered with all the seriousness of such arty music, but on topics like Heather Mills and Polish plumbers and their gherkins, but instead, I'll give you this one that follows. It probably should have at least a 15 certificate.

Comments

  1. Presumably the reason you trekked all the way from Swindon to Windsor to see them is this piece I came across in their blog - http://www.fascinatingaida.co.uk/wordpress/

    which describes their trip to Swindon in a snowstorm in February.

    Very amusing and a good advert for their endeavours too.

    ReplyDelete

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...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

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...