Skip to main content

Been there, done that

Coventry Cathedrals, old and new
I don't know why, but there are some things in life that you do, and enjoy, but decide that you really don't want do again.

In some cases, once was enough. I've been to a football match and Wimbledon, for example, and that was fine. But I have no intention of going to either again. In my early 20s I had a couple of years going to a fair number of the Proms, queuing all day to get near the rail in the arena. Loved it. But you'd have to pay me to do it now. A lot.

The latest activity that seems to have run its course is singing in cathedrals. Over the years I have joined visiting choirs in a fair number of cathedrals and enjoyed a unique environment to sing the most beautiful music there is. In this time I've sung at Blackburn, Chester, Manchester, Lichfield, Bristol, Portsmouth, Winchester, Salisbury, St Albans, Lincoln, Ely, Peterborough, Rochester, Canterbury, Oxford and Westminster Abbey, not to mention three years in a Cambridge chapel choir.

This weekend I was at Coventry. And I think it is going to be the last. It's not because Coventry is to the great medieval cathedrals what a B and Q Superstore is to Hampton Court. Architecturally, I mean. I think it's brilliant the way the bombed out old cathedral acts as a forecourt, and I can see what they were trying to do with the style of the new building, but it just doesn't work for me. There's something about sixties architecture that doesn't age well. But the experience was as good as ever. And the people I was singing with were lovely. I've just done the singing in cathedrals thing enough.

Worryingly, I think theme parks might be next...


  1. Wow! I'd not seen Coventry Cathedral. It's certainly dramatic...

    Are you being serious about the theme parks? It would certainly make a change, I should think.

  2. You're just getting old, mate. I agree with you about theme parks, though.

  3. I'd recommend a visit, Clare. Although the interior architectural style of the new cathedral is not to my taste, the way the old and the new come together outside is very impressive - and the way it is used as a kind of World War II memorial.

    Not sure what you mean about theme parks. I've always loved them, especially roller coasters, but I haven't been to one for about 4 or 5 years, and I'm not sure I'll bother again.

    I partly agree, Henry, although it hasn't all be recent. I gave up the Proms when I was about 23, for instance.


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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope