Concerts are boring

One of the joys of becoming a grumpy old man is that you can be honest about things you couldn't possibly say when you were young. For instance, while at university and for a good number of years after, if offered sherry (yes, children, we drank sherry back then) I would go for the dry stuff. I couldn't stand it, but this was the sophisticated thing to do, so I did.

Similarly, back then, I used to go to a lot of concerts. Actually I listened to a lot of music, just sat and listened to records, which I wouldn't think of doing now. But the main point here is the concerts. Some concerts I have been to have been brilliant. I pick randomly an Al Stewart concert that was superb, and an orchestral concert at the late lamented Free Trade Hall back in the 70s, when the brass in some Shostakovitch symphony or other was so powerful it made your chest cavity resonate - that's what live music is about and it stays with me to this day.

However, I have also sat through many (many) concerts where I have spent most of the time thinking of other things, or watching the music on the players' desks to see how many pages they have left to go. ('Just one page, hurrah! What? There's a repeat to the beginning?!?') I may be the only person in the world who thinks this, but I think it's more likely that there are others out there of the same opinion, but who daren't come out of the closet. Many concerts are deadly dull. Worthy, certainly. But entertaining? Hardly.

Don't get me wrong. I like music. I love performing the right kind of music. But as something to just sit and listen to, while doing nothing else, it really doesn't work for me much of the time.

Picture from Wikipedia

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