I did not watch last night's RLB Festival of Remembrance, although I have recorded it and played a few of the musical highlights. The musical highlight for me was Russell Watson (at which point certain readers faint...)
I have never been a fan of Russell "The Voice" Watson. Whenever I have heard him sing classical music or hymns, I thought he sounds like a nightclub singer out of his depth. On last night's programme he sang That's Life, the old Frank Sinatra number.
I thought he sounded really wonderful, it seemed to suit his voice perfectly. Much more pleasant to listen to than Sinatra. In some ways, not really that appropriate for a Remembrance Service but, actually, in a strange way, it did seem right. I have subsequently done a bit of research (well, you know, Wikipedia) and I discover that it is on an album he released last year, packed with songs of much the same genre. If he sings the rest like he sings that one, I am pretty sure it is a damn good album. If you like that sort of music. I don't especially, not to the extent of buying records, but I find it tolerably pleasant in the right context on TV or in a bar.
So I ask myself, why is Russell Watson being marketed as a classical singer? It makes no sense. He isn't a classical singer: his business model is pop, his background (and lack of training) is pop, his concert performances are pop, the music he sings is pop - be it modern pop, Sinatra-ish type crooning, or old-style Neapolitan songs and the like - combined with a few dodgy renditions of the most popular Italian arias that were standard rep for every Italian pub singer in the late 19th and early 20th century singer. His album to be released next week is full of covers of pop classics.
He claims to have invented 'classical crossover' (obviously forgot to consult with Signor Caruso) but I don't understand why he doesn't market himself as a gifted pop singer. I don't understand why Classic FM had him on their short-list of best 'classical' singers. I think there is a massive market of people wanting to buy decent pop songs by decent pop singers, so I don't know why he calls himself a classical singer nor why he calls himself a 'tenor', when he could totally mint it by being a bona fide pop singer.
Part of the reason I didn't watch the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance (apart from being out) was the disgust I felt at last year's. There's always an uneasy co-habitation between the Remembrance of the First World War, with its iconography and poetry (verbal and visual), and glorification of current conflicts. I have been watching several TV programmes broadcast or repeated as part of the season to mark the (rather odd) 90th anniversary of WW1. In any case, it is a subject I have studied in some depth for quarter of a century.
I was appalled on the news the other day to hear children parroting the lines 'they died so we could be free'. Exactly the same lines that children were made to recite at the RLB FofM last year apropos of Iraq and Afghanistan. In WW1 the willy-waving generals and politicians led millions of young men and some young women to be slaughtered for nothing, other than 'pride' - yes, I know about Belgium - but just as Sarajevo was merely the flame that lit the bonfire, Belgium was just an excuse for Britain to go to war, a war savoured by the jingoists.
I still haven't worked out what benefit the Iraqi War has brought to anybody, anywhere in the World. Certainly not in Iraq, and I do believe it has served to make Britain less free. (And don't even mention the recession). Afghanistan is more complex; there was a strong argument for hunting down Bin Laden, that required getting rid of the Taliban, but we abandoned it halfway through when we decided to go for Iraq instead. I don't think that my 'freedom' is improved by the slaughter of non-combatants nor of 'Taliban' militias who are, in reality subsistence farmers who signed up to feed their starving families. I feel it is quite insulting when the propagandists - yes, Huw Edwards - talk about dead service personnel as having chosen to make a sacrifice for their country. Oh yeah? Well, start putting that in the Services' recruitment adverts rather than 'See the World and Learn a Trade'.
I realise I am sitting in my armchair pontificating. Put myself in danger? Not likely. Every year, we have this television spectacular celebrating those who have been killed in military service. Many of the casualties of the two World Wars, and Korea, were conscripts, little more than prisoners, treated worse than convicts, with their liberty and then their lives taken away. But all subsequent conflicts have been with a volunteer army, who signed up for the danger. Nowadays the service also includes the Bevin boys, Metropolitan Police, St John's Ambulance, London Fire Brigade and London Transport in a direct recognition of the Home Front in World War II.
But there is never anything so grand to mark public servants who have died in the line of duty serving the public, or who face danger daily. Because of work, I am aware of National Police Memorial Day, but they are not so far removed from the military.
What about fire-fighters and health workers, Customs Officers and Prison Officers? I accept that few die directly in the line of duty but many face stress and danger and are invalided out with little media attention.
What about the transport workers, especially minicab drivers, and Post Office and Betting Shop workers, for whom danger is daily but without whom we wouldn't have 'Freedom'? Or the very many injured in industrial accidents or suffering chronic industrial illnesses. Like the modern armed forces, they signed up, not really thinking about the dangers.
Without them, my easy life as a pen-pusher would not be as comfortable or tolerable, or as Free. I see that War Veterans (under 60) are now to get free travel on London Transport; I don't see that being extended to those people forced onto benefits by illness,injury or violence at work.
Those of us in low-risk jobs are being bullied into a sentiment not far removed from the propaganda that sent the millions of cannon fodder to die in 1914-18. This time it's the armchair journalists doing it. Not the ones like Frank Gardner, injured as a civilian employee and paralysed when doing his job, shop by Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. But the ones who mislead the public when they stand outside government departments reading a prepared script to camera and kidding us that they have been doing some in-depth investigation when they're just quoting a Press Release and could do so just as easily in the studio.
Oh, and as for Katherine Jenkins. It was a low key performance, at times significantly lower than the key of the orchestra. The dress was relatively modest, almost completely covering her breasts. I did think that I had learnt another bit of Welsh vocabulary - you know how some modern Welsh words just mimic English, like coffi, smokio, parkio. I thought desolation must be another one. Until she got to the chorus and it slowly dawned on me she was singing in English. I started to recognise half phrases, but only because it's such a familiar poem: They Shall Grow Not Old.
I was well impressed to see yet another example of Barbie not knowing and not giving a flying fuck about the words when, at the line 'At the going down of the sun' ...no, you have to watch it to grasp the sheer stupidity...
Fast forward to 3.05 for the start of the stanza, and 3.30 for the phrase...



Recent Comments