Gertsamtkunstwerk

La clemenza di Tito

If you are a fan of Figaro and Don Giovanni, don't watch this with an expectation of similar. In many ways it is more reminiscent of operas of an earlier era. For a start, it is set in Classical Roman times, in the reign of the Emperor Titus (quel surprise) and strikes me as being much heavier on recitative than Mozart's more famous works.

Watching it I assumed that it was fairly early in his career, but it actually came five years after Figaro, ten years after Idomeneo, and less than three months before his death.

Opera nights opines

Not considered one of Mozart's greatest operas, and although it contains some beautiful melodies the plot is rather feeble.

The first problem I had when watching it was with the 'trouser roles' which I found confusing. They are actually wearing skirt-like togas; you only really know that they're trouser roles because they're also wearing breastplates. My problem is that two of the four male characters were played by women. I wonder if originally they would have been castrati; nowadays a countertenor or high tenor would be more logical. Musically, I'm grateful for the women's voices, however, dramatically it detracts from the love scenes. And, also, I suspect that Tito's love - platonic - for Sesto would have had more impact if Sesto had been played by a man.

But perhaps I am looking for an explanation of the fact that, basically, the characters did not make sufficient of an emotional impact upon me for me to care. Whether that is a problem of this production or whether of the opera itself I can't say for sure. But just a little bit of surfing suggests the latter.

From time to time there are some superb Mozart moments, but I think there may be a bit too much of the recitative - the boring bits in-between - to make this a do not miss/desert island opera. I guess it would good to have on a highlights CD.

Even when the orchestra is playing non-recitative, I think it's rarely memorable. There are some fine moments eg some pleasant military music in Act I Scene ii, and in scene iii there is some lovely use of clarinet, reminiscent of his clarinet quintet which I love so much.

I imagine it would be worth seeing live. But I am not sure, considering all the other operas I have, and all the great and varied Mozart I have, whether life is long enough ever to watch this again.

Regarding this production, the staging almost inconsequential - some bland corporate setting. Although in Act II, Ancient Rome was hinted at by busts being littered randomly over the floor. I could not get into it emotionally.  I began to understand that this opera was about Tito being a just merciful ruler. The title ought to have been a give away!

Perhaps part of my indifference is that on the whole, the cast was full of unconvincing actors. Philip Langridge was tremendous as Tito but the rest were a bit cardboard. I don't have any complaints about the singing and especially enjoyed Diana Montague as Sesto.

I wonder whether it would be more enjoyable in a more inspired staging. Very little action, far too much standing and delivering.

This was a 1991 production from Glyndebourne with the London Philharmonic under Andrew Davis.

Earlier in the day, before I watched this, I had been listening to Haydn's Creation. When this video was finished, the tune that stayed in my head was from the Creation. "The new created world..." I think, in a sense, that sums it up. It came in a period of 48 hours that also featured Un ballo in maschera, Don Carlo and Salome, and of all these works, it is the least. In my opinion, La clemenza di Tito is probably only a C-list opera.

I recorded it off the Performance Channel, so it gets shown every few months.

Politicians' music

To be honest, I think it's a pointless article. Vaguely entertaining but, ultimately, of no consequence. When I was younger I swallowed all the crap from the women's magazines about how you can judge someone's personality by their record collection. No, I think you can usually judge someone's musical tastes by their record collection. Alternatively, their social-climbing aspirations.

I certainly don't think musical tastes tell us anything about politicians, and certainly not about actual issues. Heck, there are times when I have cringed at the musical tastes of musicians I admire. During an Election, all politicians, regardless of party or seniority are hyper aware that they must project an image, and, I am sure, most of them have calculated - or at least edited - their choices to be consistent with an image.

So many of them cite Bob Dylan. Someone once said that I was the sort of person who felt they ought to like Bob Dylan but can't quite. If it hadn't been so funny, I would have taken it as an insult.

I suspect of the lot, my tastes are closest to Tessa Jowell.

But if I were standing for election and was asked that question, I am not sure which of my various favourites I would select to project an image of my personality/values/politics.

I'm going to Vote Labour

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Labour

Your actual outcome:

	Labour 54
Conservative -55
	Liberal Democrat 46
UK Independence Party -23
Green -1

You should vote: Labour

The Labour Party is broadly pro-Europe and takes a strong line in favour of all anti-terrorism measures, and of course supported the war in Iraq. Labour is against explicit increases in income tax to fund public services and against the abolition of university tuition fees, but has pledged to reintroduce maintenance grants for students.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

I remember doing a quiz for the London Mayoral Electionin 2000, and was told to vote either Tory or the Christian party. Amused, I sent it to a local Labour mailing list, and got back half a dozen replies gently taking the piss, and then three admitting they had got equally bizarre results. I then sent it to some people who were members of other parties, and they got strange results, too.

Why I am so much closer to the UKIP than Tories, I don't know, considering I strongly support joining the Euro and signing up to the EU constitution - surely that in itself should be -100% for UKIP.

Or perhaps it's because I opposed the Tories knee-jerk ill-thought out xenophobia. Nope, that should also put me against the UKIP.

via someone on the blogroll

Dandy Highwayman

Finally, someone recognises Adam as the genius we knew he was back in 1980. We might have been adolescent girls, but we were also intelligent young women with discernment and judgementAdam and the fall.

It really was Pop's Golden Age.

Unnerving search requests

I rarely look at the Activity Log associated with this site. It lists various admin things, but also what internal searches have been carried out. Most of them are neutral and sensible, most of the rest are entirely consistent with the googling that have got people here in the first place.

But a few are potentially a little disquieting. There seems to a certain amount of vanity searching by a close relative aged approximately nine years old; also a series of searches from or about the sister of someone I was madly in love with years ago. Also something current and personal about someone (I'm being deliberately vague).

Just a reminder that the internet may seem a vast anonymous amorphous place, but search engines render it very personal.

I'm thankful I have been relatively cautious. There are a few times I've wanted to write something and have held back, knowing that someone else could make a guess - correct or incorrect - about who it's about, or could make assumptions about private matters, again correctly or incorrectly. It's not the place of this blog to reveal aspects about the lives of current, former or old friends that they may not wish to be common knowledge. And I try to err on the side of caution.

Of course, when I slag off people eg work colleagues, I don't use their names, but another work colleague would be able to guess who it was. that's probbaly not very smart, but, hey...!

Attention Loreto Old Girls...!

Well, I know there's at least two that read this...

Nick has drawn my attention to Tories promise expansion of faith schools

At a prize giving ceremony at St Ambrose College Greater Manchester

Update According to the Tory news release, St Ambrose is in 'Hales Barn'. I would have though the good residents of Hale Barns ought to be placing basic literacy at the top of their demands for Education.

And angry that the Tories fail to recognise that, despite the 1974 Local Government Act, Hale Barns is *really* Cheshire.

Tee hee...!

Un ballo in maschera, part 2

Tonight, live from the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, starring Marcelo Alvarez as Riccardo, Karita Mattila as Amelia, Thomas Hampson as Renato, Camilla tilling as Oscar and Elisabetta Fiorillo as Ulrica.

This is definitely Verdi's best opera (though we shall revisit that opinion in June and July...;-) Musically, fabulous, a very clear demonstration that Wagner did not invent the leitmotif, a really superb example of how the story is told so well by the orchestra. There are some great arias, fine ensemble pieces, and choruses whose effect is visceral. The Orchestra of Royal Opera House under Antonio Pappano were at their very best - I have never loved strings so much as I did tonight, at time dramatic, at times romantic, always precise, and yet, with enough rubato. The horns, especially in Act 3, were searing, and the clarinettist deserves special praise.

The singers were all praiseworthy, to a greater or lesser degree. I particularly noted the basses of the chorus as they sinisterly intoned the conspirators music. Elisabetta Fiorillo was pretty much as one would expect of an Ulrica, with dramatic colours in the lower third of the range, although less heft higher up. Camilla Tilling was disappointing. A small voice, although without doubt a beautiful voice. At times she was barely audible over the orchestra, at one point - in Ulrica's cave - I thoght she must have been singing from offstage, until I spotted her - she had her back to the audience. Her colaratura was executed excellently, but I felt the voice lacked much variety, or any colour, and I wasn't sure whether she had anything else in her amoury.

In acts I and II I felt that Thomas Hampson was generic, at best. I certainly couldn't see the Tommy Handsome soubriquet, although I was without my binoculars. He has had his hair cut since I last saw him, and looks better for it. But in Act III he rode the stage like a colussus. I think fans of Mr Hampson are in for a treat. In his voice I could find anger, anguish, love, regret, and his physical acting was convincing. I was very impressed by his showpiece aria in Act III Scene 1.

I found Marcelo Alvarez disappointing, perhaps because my expectations were so high. I have to say that he has great looks for opera. He's nothing special close to - in photos and on DVD - but from the Amphitheatre he is very striking and projects facial expressions clearly. I felt that he took time to warm up - in Act I Scene 1 I could have sworn he was flat. Not by very much, but enough to disturb my non-expert ear. At times, especially in Act II, I was impressed by his seemingly effortless ability to vary the volume and colour of his voice, often sweet, often, well, not dramatic, to be honest, he lacked the dramatic. But, after the first scene, musically very good.

I can't say I was taken by his portrayal of Riccardo. Whether it was his acting, or whether it was the director's fault, I don't know, but he seemed two dimensional and uninteresting. I couldn't really feel any great sympathy for him, and felt rather indifferent to his fate. He was neither romantic hero nor (benign) autocratic ruler, just a rather ordinary geezer aged about forty. And, to be honest, he did not seem to be that agile as he moved around stage.

The star of the show was undoubtedly Karita Mattila. I have heard great things about her, so set my Sceptic Radar to high. She wowed me. Nothing special in Act I Scene II when she comes to Ulrica's cave, satisfactory, but no more, although elegant. But in Acts II and III she was amazing. I speak of Alvarez's and Hampson's ability to shade their voices, but she out-classed both of them put together. Her voice is great throughout the range, sweet and true at the top, rich and significant at the bottom. During her Act III aria I actually got an insight into how it must have felt to see Callas. Don't ask me to explain or justify, it was just the way I felt. And she got the most rousing applause. I really can't find a word of criticism. At the end of the Act II Love Duet, she and Alvarez received prolonged applause. In order to maintain the dramatic momentum they snogged (I daresay it was acting, but it was convincing). I don't think I was the only person with the wicked thought 'the longer we go on clapping, the longer they have to do that...'.

The production was okay. Naturally, it opened with 13 men sitting on plush velvet toilets, as is now traditional...(joke, BTW). Actually, I had a real issue with the beginning - as the Overture played, Riccardo was seen sitting on his throne, although, obviously it wasn't a throne, it was just an ordinary chair, as befitting the Governor of Boston. I thought that was musically wrong, because when Act I proper gets under way, his entrance is accompanied by music marking one of the grandest entrances in opera, therefore to show him beforehand betrays an ignorance of the music. Rude ignorant people talk during the overture regardless; one of the highlights of Hugo de Ana's otherwise pisspoor Forza last autumn was the fact that we sat, with curtain down, listening to the prelude. The Ballo prelude is not lesser music.

I felt the sets and costumes for Act I Scene 1 were nothing special. Scene 2 worked dramatically, with the crowd of onlookers ranged behind cages, on three levels, looking into the cave. However, this was illogical, and the presence in the cave of Ulrica's bed made nonsense of this effect. Plus she did not have an actual cauldron, which was disappointing. The scene just happened, with nothing special worth mentioning. But in the closing, glorious chorus I had a moment of insight - I think - this chorus inspired the entire oeuvre of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Act II, at the gallows' field was, on the whole, well done, although I felt it might as well have been an urban junk yard. I was utterly convinced that there was 60s-style one bar heater abandoned there, complete with electric flex. But I figured the flex was actually a rope, for hanging, and the electic fire just junk. It was a decent setting for the gallow scene, but it didn't work for the interception by the conspirators. I blinked and missed the bit where her veil fell off (at the time I was suffering craving for smoked salmon sandwiches - Covent Garden does that to me). The love duet, and the build up to it, showed Marcelo Alvarez at his very best, and I just went crazy for Karita Mattila.

The first scene of Act III had an appalling set. Before curtain up, there was a rocking chair horse in front of the curtain, which seemed silly. In fact, it was one of the few props that made sense, because at the end of the scene, Renato was able to carry it off with a piquant poignancy. His desk did not look convincing, and rather than a portrait of Riccardo, to which he directs part of his aria, there was a bronze statue, lying under a dust sheet on a paint-spattered trestle table, which made no sense at all. No matter, these were cleared away for Scene 2, which was facinating. I loved it - I think...

The only set to speak of was a giant mirror, in which we could clearly see Maestro Pappano and his band, and much of the front of the orchestra stalls and the stalls circle. I was fascinated with the view, and was delighted to be ale to see Tony in action. But it was a distraction when Marcelo came on to sing his showpiece aria. It is a piece of music I adore, but I wasn't able fully to appreciate it, because I was silently oohing and aahing at the mirror effect.

This partially lifted for Scene 3 to reveal the scene of the ball. In some ways it was clever, affording us unusual views of people going downstairs, of the onstage band etc. But despite the cleverness - and it was clever, and in some ways a coup de theatre I felt it made for a lost opportunity. The ballroom seemed cramped and sparsely attended, and, incidentally, the masks were rubbish, straight out of a Christmas cracker. As the guests moved off to allow Riccardo and Amelia's secret tryst, I was distracted by the reflections of the movements of the chorus and actors. I also nealy missed the assassination, which was a bit of an anti-climax. There was no blood, which was a shame. The music is stupendously melodramatic, but the stage directions were not. Riccardo sings for ages - quite gloriously, incidentally, well done Marcelo - but the drama seemed to be just him rising out of and slumping back down into the chair.

Overall, though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect, but it's definitely added to my list of possible Best Performances of the Year. I shall definitely be booking for the revival in November, and would be delighted if it were, on the whole, this cast. I took some photos at curtain calls, but they're not great. I'll have a fiddle with them and see if they're worth publishing. But probably not before the weekend.

Reading through this, I seem to be damning Marcelo Alvarez with faint praise, which was not my intention. He is said by some to be the best tenor in the world right now, at least in this sort of rep, so I am judging him against that criteria. If he fell short of my high expectation, it wasn't by far.

But, as far as I'm concerned, the night belonged to Karita Mattila and to Tony Pappano.

Update: The Times is the first of the Dead Tree Media to publish a review.

Guardian Review

Passion arrives eventually - The Telegraph

This ball lacks bounce

Depressing

One in four parents who watched Jamie Oliver's TV campaign for better school dinners has ditched junk food, a poll revealed yesterday.

I'm not sure what's more depressing - the inferrence that many parents watched it and still feed crap to their brats, or that those millions who have switched didn't know beforehand what poison they were dolingout. No doubt their heads are filled with trivia. Or, alternatively, they have now swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker, without considering that a bit of junk now and again for convenience ain't going to kill anybody.

Meanwhile in other news, Rowan Williams says it's about time adults grow up

Some interesting thoughts - but he's wrong on the Welfare-to-Work issue. Perhaps he would like to see all women at home, financially dependent upon their husbands, regardless of the age of their children. Many mothers - and, in some cases, fathers - would like to take responsibility and get back into the workplace, but need a bit of a helping hand

It has served importantly as a corrective to a passive attitude, but, insofar as it presumes that economic productivity is where we all ought to end up, irrespective of our nurturing and forming responsibilities, as a society it isn't enough productivity and too little on persuading them to develop nurturing skills for their children's sake.

Of course it isn't enough. He clearly hasn't heard of Surestart, which the Tories would scrap. For generations and generations ordinary people combined parenthood with working - my mother said she was the first person in her family to be a stay-at-home mother.

But whether the god-botherers like it or not, we live in a fundamentally capitalist society where economic activity is essential for survival. Not exclusively so, which is what he's hinting at, but still essential.

Thatch looking fab

I'm hard-pressed to decide who is more detestable, Thatcher or Stringfellow

An affair between the two of them would knock all other stories off the front page.

I was in a cafe once when Peter Stringfellow walked in. He looked around in a "Look at me! Look at me!" way. Everyone studiously avoided him.

He looked grotesque then, and that was ten years ago.

Un ballo in maschera - part one

I'm posting this now, because tonight I'm off to Covent Garden to see the first night of the brand new performance. (And I shall rush back home in a pathetic attempt to be first to post...!)

I originally wrote this for rmo, but why waste words, when they can be reused and recycled...! And typos corrected...

Last week I jumped for joy when I saw a new version of Un ballo in maschera was available. Its dropping through the letter box this morning put a positive spring in my step. I lurve Ballo. Indeed, if Otello hadn't gone and written Verdi, I would say that this is definitely my favourite of his operas, and could put up a cogent, if necessarily disputable, case for it being his best.

I already have a version of it on video from Covent Garden in 1975, which is intensely frustrating, and also a video from La Scala in the last year or two, which has its merits. The La Scala one I have only watched once or maybe twice, and not for a while, so I can't really offer a sensible critique.

But I have just watched the Stuttgart 1990 DVD and I think it's gorgeous. To some extent my comments are made in reference to the 1975 Covent Garden, of which I have provided detailed impressions elsewhere.

The first thing that strikes me is the staging. I hated the staging as seen in the CG, even though I know some of the problems relate to the relatively primitive technology of filming - or lighting - the stage for TV back then. But my main criticism was the sheer boredom of the staging and the appalling acting of all but Placido Domingo and Reri Grist. Most of the other characters,  from the other leads to the chorus,  just stood and delivered. I tried to figure out how I would stage it, but couldn't really think of anything that wouldn't destroy the storyline.

So this Schlesinger production was a mighty relief - very much staging it as the libretto - and music - dictate, with some wonderful details - quite some grotesques in Ulrica's cave, the occasional silent  appearance of Amelia and Renato's son as appropriate, and so on. The change from Gustavo's soliloquy in his study to the Masked Ball must be one of the more difficult scene changes to execute whilst the music is still playing, but this was handled marvellously with a revolving stage. I have to say that the actual ball scene was a bit unsumptious but I did like the fact that Gustavo and Amelia met outside for their final passionate duet - sort of reminded me of ball-attending days, right down to the stone staircases leading down to the lake. I also liked the masks - not some pathetic out-of-a-Christmas cracker piece of cardboard with two holes cut out for the eyes that wouldn't fool a small child, but proper masks that they held with their hands, as shown in Francesco da Mosta's wonderful documentary on Venice, or, indeed, in Adam and the Ants' envelope-pushing Prince Charming video.

In fact I just loved the staging.

Vote positive or negative

I will pin my colours to the mast and say that I am a die-hard Labour Loyalist, and thus, would vote Labour if it were it were a donkey wearing a red rosette.

Few people identify so strongly with a political party. Come election day, many have to decide which is their best-fit choice or their least-worst option.

I would say that there can be an element of laziness within this - John Cole said on eve-of-poll 1992 that many people like to pick who they perceive to be the eventual winner, thus correctly predicting a Tory victory. This worked the other way in 1997 when some people thought it fashionable to vote Labour, so did.

However, the evidence suggests that the greater number of people cast an 'anti' vote. This can be lazy - "I'm fed up with This Lot, I'll give the Other Lot a chance." Or it can be Tactical.

If I lived in a Tory-LibDem marginal, where Labour was distinctly in third, or lower, place, I would have to consider whether an anti-Tory vote was more valuable than a pro-Labour vote. I have never faced this dilemma, never having lived in a seat where the Lib Dems were a serious electoral consideration. I do know somebody who voted Lib Dem in 1992 as the best placed runner-up to the Tories, and was astonished to see Labour overtake the LibDems.

I would also argue very strongly that if you live in a Constituency where the BNP are fighting a significant campaign, you vote for whatever party is most likely to keep them out. I don't think there are any Tory-BNP battles, if there was, and I lived there, I would soul-search, think very very carefully, and seek a Tory in a Labour-BNP battleground to 'swap' votes with.

There is a temptation to select a fringe party or an independent candidate as a protest against the ruling party. I would not criticise someone for doing that out of ideological reasons, but as a protest, I see it as an exercise in futility.

It may look big and it may seem clever, achingly trendily so, but, in essence, it is tantamount to abdicating responsibility.

General Elections serve two purposes: one is to determine which party forms the government. This is almost always the Party that has the greatest number of MPs in Parliament. It is also the method of electing somebody to be your reperesentative in Parliament. For most of my life I have lived in constituencies served by diligent and conscientious constituency MPs - Fergus Montgomery, Teddy Taylor, and for the past thirteen years, the great Keith Hill. The less said about Martin Bastard-Brandon-Bravo the better; William Shelton never grazed my consciousness.

The three named were/are characterised by:

• responding to my letters of lobbying
• respected in the local Community regardless of political persuasion
• responsive to issues of local and national importance
• demonstrable track-records of fighting for the betterment of their communities

I also know of Keith, because of my work as a councillor, how vital is it to have an MP with a personal commitment, and a competent staff , to deal with personal casework.

I recall a story from some years ago, told to me by someone who worked at the DHSS, or Benefits Agency, or whatever it was called. They often got MPs' letters representing their constituents. If it was Tony Lloyd, the managers' attitude was 'Finger out. Now.' If it was Fergus Montgomery, the manager's attitude was 'This needs addressing'. If it was Winston Churchill 'I suppose we ought to deal with this.' My many years of audit have shown me that this is not uncommon in Central and Local Government.

Simply, some elected representatives are not taken as seriously as others. Some have the ability to understand and analyse the problem, the tenacity to pursue the matter, and the confidence to hold officials accountable. Others don't. And that is why I would never respect someone who votes for a fringe party to make themself feel good, without considering whether that candidate has the ability fully to represent the often great needs of individuals.

As a great man once nearly said, "Ask not what my community can do for me but what I can do for my community..."

Walkure tickets

I keep getting search requests for "Walküre tickets, Covent Garden. I laugh, and think 'you'll be lucky..." and I laugh more knowing that I have a ticket for each of two performances.

Then I thought, before laughing on my blog, I should check ebay. Turns out there are some. Not cheap, and only until next Wednesday. But there you go.

Icon

Turning Japanese

I was never as into Japan as some of my friends were, perhaps I was just too suburban and mainstream to get the weirdness, but what little I have of their oeuvre I like. Back in the Eighties I thought David Sylvian one of the most beautiful men alive. I have a signed photo of him, which was actually taken by Steve Jansson. And there's a whole story behind that...

Vauxhall Bus Station

Route master

I like Vauxhall Bus Station, it is now an integral part of my commute. Shame there are no pictures. I shall try and remedy that by the end of the week.

I'm Starstruck

I'm not supposed to post to t'internet when ever so slighty squiffy, but WTF. Tonight I met Teddy Tahu Rhodes, and he's lush, and when he's famous, I'll be able to say I met Teddy Tahu Rhodes. Guess what! He's an accountant!

And also a pretty good singer.

Update:

Royal Wedding

Oh come on, did you think I wouldn't watch it...?

Lovely, I thought, lovely. The Bride looked radiant. The Queen, gawd bless her, wasn't it lovely to see her so happy? Wills and Harry, what nice lads.

Okay, okay, that's going a bit far...

Elsewhere, I wrote my immediate impressions on the music:

This particular piece was a setting of the Creed by Alexander Grechaninov, who was born in Moscow in 1864 and died some 90 years later in New York, and the soloist was Ekaterina Sementchuk. Details here - a finalist in the Cardiff Singer of the World 2001, and a present from the Mariinsky (Theatre, in St Petersburg).

I thought the music was great - I'm a sucker for stonking anthemic hymns, although if I was world dictator, I would ban Love Divine All Love's Excelling from the wedding services. It's beautiful, but the tessitura is a killer for mere mortals like me. I do recall one wedding where a friend (tenor) and I almost dissolved into giggles at our inability to sing it...

I will put forward a controversial view that the music was better by a mile than the Papal funeral. I like funerals also to have stonking
anthemic music, and while I like a bit of Gregorian chant, not that much...

I got a frisson of goose pimples during the Immortal Invisible. If the organ wasn't enough, it was wonderful hearing the strings of the Phil soar heavenwards. The Bach cantata was beautiful. I was disappointed that the otherwise impeccable Dermot Murnaghan talked over the Albinoni oboe concerto, although I couldn't help thinking that it was a poor imitation of Handel. I wasn't impressed by the never-to-be-heard-again except on the highlights Hoddinott fanfare and was relieved when it segued into Handel's Water Music. I may complain to the BBC about the instant pumping out of Duran Duran in a trailer for the General Election coverage.

It was nice to see some familiar faces in the Philharmonia, notably the Leader, although I noticed that gigglers and chatterers of the lower strings seemed absent. I was curious to see the shot of the two
conductors in unison. I felt the Nat Ant would have been improved by a glorious timpani roll and the essential, to my mind, cymbal clash at the climax of the twiddly bit.

I was disappointed that much of the music was played before the blessing, when the TV was focusing on celeb arrivals. But one shouldn't complain.

Did you notice Wills's bald patch. And how like Edward VII the bearded Kent (Prince Michael looks). Eugenie has obviously worked out how to avoid the paparazzi, with that hat over her face, you'd never have guessed it were her, except that she was next to Beatrice who unfortunate girl managed to inherit the worst features from both her parents, who aren't actually that bad looking themselves. Doesn't Phil the Greek look fit and well preserved for 84 - 85 this year. At one point I saw a shot of a woman and thought, Oh she looks familiar, then I realised it was her who has been on our stamps and money all my life. And longer.

Were Kate and Chelsy there, I never spotted them. But then, I'm not sure I would.

Top tip for Birthday Honours - Timothy West will become a knight of the realm.

Walküre - and more - with piccies

sub-title - Attention, Bryn fans!

Opera Japonica/International News/Letter from London

Drama at Gert Cottage

I'm at home; Jimmy is on the way to the pub.

I know that, because he phoned from the road at the bottom of our drive.

He wants to be at home, too.

But he can't come home.

Now, as pathetic excuses for going to the pub go, how do you rate, "I can't come home, the police won't let me, there's an armed incident on the corner."

So I went outside, and there's a bloke walking round in jeans and a jacket, and Met Police baseball cap. I was thinking of getting my camera out. But an armed incident...? I think I shall be stay indoors scaredy cat.

Update: Tentatively, I ventured out, then realised that half the neighbourhood was standing around gawping. So I joined them, having a laugh with the guys in the warehouse next door, about Jimmy having to go to the pub. I went back to get my camera, but the police were giving me stern looks. When you're given stern looks by plainclothes police in baseball caps, who might well, for all I know, be armed response officers, you don't take photos (amateurish, I know...). I spent a few minutes reassuring some little girls that if it was dangerous, the police wouldn't let us stand around gawping. I had explained to their mothers about Jimmy being banished to the pub. they looked at me bemused; I suddenly realised by their dress they were Moslem.

Two very young men were led away by the police, and I chatted to one of the officers. She explained that although they are plainclothes they wear the baseball caps for easy identification (I suppose if there is a shoot-out they don't want a man down.)

Jimmy came home and said that he was walking along with his plastic bag of shopping, and saw that the police were all looking at him. He suddenly realised his fly was undone.

I did think for a few moments it might have been The Bill filming. They have been known. But I think they were proper.

My vote is worth nothing

This question has puzzled me for upwards of twenty years, and I am not going to pretend to have the answer.

It is accepted as a truism that the election is really determined in 50-100 constituencies 'Key Marginals' and those of us living in 'safe' seats might as well stay at home for all the good it does.

2001 RESULT FOR STREATHAM Labour 56.9% Liberal Democrat 18.3% Conservative 17.9% Others 6.9%

This wasn't how I felt in 1992, though (see below)...

(and rest assured Keith, or friends of Keith, who may be reading, I will get my sorry arse over the road to VOTE KEITH on 5 May!)

I could recount anecdotes about the ward in Nottingham, where the highest placed but unelected Labour candidate came a mere two votes behind the lowest elected Conservative. This lead to the Conservatives having an overall majority of one seat on the two-party council, and, thus, overall control.

I could relate the story of a then colleague and husband, Labour Party members but not activists, who slinked away from the polling station, unable to meet the eyes of the Labour Teller, having tactically voted LibDem - the Lib Dems defeated the sitting Tory by 57 votes.

Or I could give you tales of the approximate method of counting votes - indeed, I will, but on another day...

Each vote can make a diference. In the way that if you keep putting your loose change in a jar, you suddenly find you have enough money for an airfare, or the deposit on a house. "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves."

But my vote doesn't matter.

At the risk of sounding dreadfully old-fashioned, I do believe that there is such a thing as society. It's not always what we do as individuals that count, but what we do as part of society.

You can rest assured that the far right extremist hate parties will be incredibly well organised to ensure that their supporters vote in their droves. I confidently believe that not one person who reads this blog will vote BNP (and Fuck Off if you do, your readership isn't wanted), so I say to all of you, if you have a BNP candidate standing in your constituency, please examine your conscience and cast your vote in a way that ensures that those hate-filled scum maggots are denied the oxygen of publicity, and, even worse, a Parliamentary seat.

For many years, I trotted out parrot fashion the phrase that many women sacrificed a great deal in order that I can vote. When I first stood for election in 1994, in Brixton's Town Hall Ward, and spent very many hours canvassing votes, I was overwhelmed by the number of black, mainly young-ish, people who said that they were going to vote, perhaps for the first time in their life, because they had been so moved by the scenes from the South African election, where black people were able to vote for the first time. Not that I count myself in the Nelson Mandela league...

There are also other considerations in casting a vote - even in a 'safe', one way or th'other seat, the vote eventually gets aggregated, and forms the historical record of the election, being used in the formulae for all those wonderful psephological games. I love psephology, me...!

I find it hard to formulate a convincing argument, even to myself, that me voting, or abstaining, or spoiling my ballot paper, or voting for a fringe party, can make any difference. To be honest, that is why, over the years, I have actively campaigned, stood for election (and won, and served eight years).

That is why I write to the media, that is why I lobby my MP, that is why I write stuff on this blog. My vote is only the key to unlocking my democratic participation. If you don't vote, you can't complain, I said yesterday. I actually think it should be - if you don't complain, you can't complain...!

JP2 did not bring down the Berlin Wall

I find it really quite galling how easily history gets re-written. I suppose the collapse of Communism was the first Global Event that I had any real insight into - 1987/88 was an extraordinary academic year in which to study Soviet and East European Politics, especially when one decided in December 87 to defer the exam until June 1989 (the ultimate political misjudgement, well, apart from buying an Atlas literally two days before the wall came down...).

I was appalled by the suggestions last summer that Ronnie Reagan caused it to happen, and I welcome Jonathan Steele's piece on how We are rewriting the history of communism's collapse; Slate's headline is The Pope Didn't End Communism

I suspect, sadly, we will have to wait until Mikhail Gorbachev dies, and then some, until we get a proper analysis of his legacy. I was always a big Gorby fan, sometimes beyond my better judgement, I have to say, and I feel that he is the forgotten marginalised man despite the fact that he, more than anyone else in my lifetime changed the world. Even his official website is three years out of date. He is 74 years old. China Daily states that he is now politically a Social Democrat.

Toynbee on the Pope

Although I don't actually disagree with a word or a sentiment in what she has written, nevertheless I shrug at her Not in my name comment piece.

What new insights has she to offer, exactly how many minutes at the typewriter did this piece take?

Knocking 'mediaeval religions' for being irrational is like criticising rain for being wet. What would be interesting would be a better analysis of why the majority of the world aligns itself to one or other of the irrational pre-mediaeval religions, and why Catholicism, for example, has equal draw for the uneducated disposessed of Sao Paolo and sub-Saharan Africa, and for supposedly intelligent feminists in Downing Street. I don't suppose Toynbee could begin to understand that. Without an inkling of that understanding, her words are just tonight's chip wrapper.

one of the most beautiful and inspiring concerts of the year

Placido Domingo thrills a sold out Gulf Coast Coliseum audience with superb concert.

This was a concert that truly lived up to its theme of "One Voice, One Orchestra. One Night Only" a concert that will go down as one of the finest ever to come to this area

says the Slidell Sentry News.

We'd never be so uncritically impressed here on madmusings, oh no, never. In fact, there's a whole phrase in the article I take issue with.

Elections - and why vote

If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It

as Ken Livingstone famously entitled his autobiogrpahy.

Yet, bizarrely, in other news, Ken Livingstone stood for and was elected Mayor of London, twice. And changed some things.

There is a saying that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain. You know, I think that's phooey. Of course, you have the right to complain. After all, your taxes are paying for the political system.

I know that everybody in the Madmusings Community is very intelligent. Being highly intelligent, we can sometimes overlook the basics in pursuit of our loftier ideas.

What is Politics?

In my not so very humble opinion, it is the least worst system we have for arranging certain aspects of society.

Long long long ago, back in history, the idea of a Parliament emerged and evolved, when men - and it was always men - of status got together to advise the King. Or Queen - interesting counterpoint there. Skip forward to about the 18th or 19th century, roughly. These gentlemen of status figured that they could more easily influence the KingQueen, now evolved into the First Lord of the Treasury, if they formed semi-permanent alliances with each other.

Then they gave the vote, gradually, to nearly all men. And it was still men. And then to some women. And then to most women. And, finally, in 1969, to all adults. Big of them, don't you think.

'Give the vote?'. They realised they wanted it back. They realised that there were some very opposing views around. There were people, often not gentlemen of status. Often not gentlemen at all. Sometimes not even men, who had no interest in influencing the QueenKing First Lord of the Treasury (PM), but wanted to influence the influencers, or the people who picked the influencers. Television was invented. And that's how we got Party Politics.

The only other alternatives are tyranny or anarchy. Well, there are others, but I can't be arsed to go upstairs and blow the dust off Plato.

Anarchy would be attractive, if it wasn't for the peskiness of human nature. And economies of scale.

I'm just GC from the Block, and I quite like the idea that we get together communally to provide certain services that we couldn't really each provide for ourselves individually. Things like armies and streetlights and so on. They make me feel secure, and that is really important. But they cost money, which we grudgingly, but being mature rational adults, ultimately willingly, pay for in some sort of fair-ish way. We call that payment taxes. I don't suppose many people could cogently diasgree with the need for us communely paying some money for things like armies and street lights.

But then the debate starts at what else it is desirable or efficient to provide in this way. And that's where Party Politics come in, because broadly speaking different political parties disagree about what public services should be provided this way; to what extent; and how they should be managed. There is also an ideological background to this, but we're not being partisan today.

And we vote because wish to express our preferences about the previous paragraph. Not only that, we also want our preferred level to be the one that prevails.

Tomorrow, or sometime, we opine that My Vote is Worthless.

Reviews

Guardian Review of Chicago ring

Zoe Williams on Brunnhilde the Suicide bomber - I'll reserve judgement until I see it. One thing I know for certain - the music's lush.

Interview with Marcelo Alvarez who opens in one of my very favourite operas Un ballo in maschera next week at Covent Garden. I shall be there, an dI'm getting increasingly exciting - opening night, go me. and next season, Cavaradossi alongside Angela Gheorghiou's Tosca, another of my very favouritest operas.

Fulsome praise of ENO's Twilight of the Gods, finishing with a hope for £1 million for a Cycle.

Apathy

The choice is not here

I couldn't be bothered to read it.

(I should install a linklog, shouldn't I, but does anybody actually read linklogs...?)

Science

Not a topic often covered on this blog. I am ashamed to say that I am in that long tradition of people of an Arts (strictly speaking, Social Science) background that know next to nothing about Science but berate Scientists who know next to nothing about Arts (keyword: CP Snow). Still, I do better than a former housemate of mine who, despite having Physics O-Level, went into a panic when she saw steam coming off the clothes she had left to dry on the radiator.

The Guardian has written an article for the likes of me: Life lessons: What is the one thing everyone should learn about science?

Some of them I know already, being a Social Scientist

I would teach the world that science is not about truth, but is about trying to get closer to the truth. This is important because, too often, people look to scientists as having the "truth". What we have is wrapped in uncertainties, caveats and simplifications.

I would teach the world that fundamental scientific research is neutral, but the dividing line between good and evil in the eventual use of the results of research is often thin and tenuous.

I would like it to be universally known that whatever we eat, it is broken down into basic building blocks of food in the gut, before it can be absorbed into the blood - ooh that's the bit of Science I do know, and I love messing with the heads of Sciencey people by talk about amino acids (22 and 12...) and fat soluble vitamins and so on. It drives them nuts because they don't have a clue about nutrition and don't like me, a mere Social Scientist, blinding them, well, with Science...

Everyone should know about plate tectonics. Oh yes, definitely. The very most interesting bit of Geography ever studied at school - maybe because it was taught by the interesting history teacher, not the boring-unable-to-teach Geography teacher, and I tried to explain it to Jimmy after Christmas, then as we drove through the Great African Rift Valley in Israel, which isn't Africa, our tour guide was talking about it. And plate tectonics are fascinating

I would like to teach the world about climate change - it amazes me that people say "All this global warming is bollocks, haven't you noticed it's getting colder," and I want to say it's not Global Warming, it's Climate Change, and don't you know about polar ice caps melting, and the effect that has on the temperatures in the oceans. And there were other people that blamed the Boxing Day Tsunami on 'Global Warning'

I would nominate the basic formula for photosynthesis: CO2 + H2O + sunlight/chlorophyll —> O2 + C6H12O6.

For others, I am startled -

Frighteningly, most people do not understand Darwin's great insight. What people miss is the sheer inevitability of the creative process. Once you see it —copy, vary, select; copy, vary, select —you see that design by natural selection simply has to happen...if everyone understood evolution, then the tyranny of religious memes would be weakened, and we little humans might find a better way to live in this pointless universe.

I mean, I'm no Scientist, but I think I instinctively or intuitively grasp this, at least at a basic level.

I also wish this was more commonly known

I would teach the world the importance of staying actively intellectually engaged throughout our lives, especially as we become elderly.

To me, it seems self-evident.

Some I disagree with

Without doubt, the most important single scientific discovery ever made was the connection between electricity and magnetism.

What, more important than the Steam Engine that entirely revolutionised society? But then, I'm a Social Scientist. At the end of 1999, the BBC did a poll of various 'Best of the Millennium'. I didn't respond to many of them, feeling that they were conflating 'most popular' with 'greatest' (obviously, I voted Robbie Williams Best Musician of the Millennium...) but one I did respond to was the Greatest Invention.

It was so obvious to me that it had to be the Steam Engine. But would you believe the computer came top with over half the votes? I mean, come on. The computer, compared to the Steam Engine? Give me a break. Mind you I guess for too many spotty geeks, Steam Engine = Train, when they don't even know they mean Locomotive, which hauls the train of rolling stock.

But my top tip goes to

Dr Robert Maynard Senior medical officer at the UK Department of Health

The principle of refutation put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper, in his books The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Conjectures and Refutations, is my choice. Popper argued that scientific knowledge advanced most reliably by the development and refutation of hypotheses — much more reliably than by the accretion of evidence in support of theories.

I am so glad I found this one, because I was thinking that I know stuff like I have mentioned above, but I think I know it on a accumulation-of-facts level, not an understanding level. As a Social Scientist, and a politician, the single most important thing ever taught to me was by my A Level Maths teacher who started every new topic by making us prove it from First Principles. He then said, you don't need to know this for the A Level syllabus, but you do need to know it. They never bothered with that at University Maths for non-Mathematicians. But it is vital for the single most important study, subject on earth - epistemology.

Death update

I have been seriously amiss in my death blogging for a month now. David Sheppard died on the eve of his birthday. The day my new nephew was born, I was on the phone to my mother, and we were discussing the famous people with which the baby shares a birthday. After reeling off various famous people, I added "And David Sheppard, of course..." My mother responded "Oh! My pin-up hero..." To which I rather undiplomatically and blunderingly had to respond "You know he died yesterday...?" She didn't. I saw him outside the Lords (no, not Lords...) last year.

Then Tommy Vance died. Somebody somewhere in the blogosphere said "This was no John Peel moment. I didn't like heavy rock/metal." I'm afraid I agreed. But I recognise that he had an artistic integrity. And quite a name...Richard Anthony Crispian Francis Prue Hope-West.

That same week Dave Allen died. This was breaking news when I was at work. I mentioned it but everyone seemed indifferent. I was surprised, he was one of the great comedians of the Seventies and Eighties, a real forerunner of the Comedy Store-style Stand ups.

In his own words -

We spend our lives on the run: we get up by the clock, eat and sleep by the clock, get up again, go to work - and then we retire. And what do they give us? A fucking clock.

Which is the fastest game in the world? Well, it's played in Belfast pubs, and it's called pass the parcel

And then Jim Callaghan died. I'm not really sure what to say. In so many ways remarkable - to rise from humble background to hold all four great offices of State was something remarkable. But was he a successful Prime Minister. I have to say 'no'. He was a an in-between, between Wilson and Thatcher, and I'm afraid I can't think of any great lasting legacy of those three years. But I think it's fair to say that as a man, he as worthy of respect.

I think there is something terribly poignant that he died just eleven days after the death of Audrey, his wife of 67 years. Imagine being married for 67 years. Surely it must be one of the longest marriages in British history, certainly amongst public figures.

He, like David Sheppard, died on the eve of his birthday. My friend Helen in Essex did some research at University that demonstrated statistically that famous people are more likely to die just after their birthdays, whilst non-famous people die just before.

Then we had the Pope, and Prince Rainier today. Saul Bellow also died today. I can't say I've ever read anything by him, but, as you know, I'm not literary. He won the Nobel Prize and according to the Beeb Bellow was married five times, and fathered a daughter at the age of 84

That kind of facinates me a) is it possible, you know, naturally and b) I know people who were disapproving of Des O'Connor at 72, or various celebs in their 60s, but I reckon, if fear of dying before the child reaches adulthood is an issue, well, should soldiers ever become fathers? Or people with terminal illnesses? Or dead people? Or anyone, really?

I would reckon Saul Bellow's daughter is well provided for financially. And, probably, knowing his age, he may have taken the effort to spend time with her rather than spending sixteen hours at the office and weekends on the golf course.

Like flies...

Monaco's Prince Rainier dies, 81

Well, that came as no surprise - just that he lingered for so long. They'll have to close the casinos for three days now.

Three days?

Does that the mean the funeral will be Saturday?

Who will represent the Queen? Herself and the Greek? Inquiring minds, and whatnot.

Nah, silly idea, she won't want to miss the Grand National, will she...

Election called

I was utterly flabbergasted at the news that today Tony has asked Queenie to dissolve Parliament next week.

Even more flabberghasted that the election is called for 5 May.

I don't suppose there will be much formal national electioneering until after Parliament dissolves, but the party activists will be out in force from now on - have already been.

As promised, I will be blogging the Election. Next week, I will be looking into ishoos, and some events from the media election. This week I shall write a few thoughts on elections and voting in a sort of non-partisan way.

But this won't be politics all the way. Between now and then, I shall be going to four operas - well, three operas and a musical, and four concerts.

There is the minor matter of an FA Cup Semi Final. Oh dear, I've just realised that Bowyer and Dyer will be suspended from the Newcastle team to face Manchester United. Come on, you Reds.

Papal Funeral, Royal Wedding

And there will probably be other...stuff...too. Cos in the end, blogging's about stuff.

Sixties Beat

Ah, the Sixties! she says through rose-coloured glasses of misty nostalgia. In the early Eighties we had a bit of a 'thing' for the Sixties, which we regarded as some sort of Golden Age, little knowing that we were in fact living the Golden Age. Perhaps we were smart enough to know that time was needed to get some perspective on the Eighties.

Listening to this double CD, what really hits me is that although very many of the tunes are very nice - some very nice indeed - and in some cases the harmonies, there is nevertheless a samey-sameness about the soundworld. Everything seems perched towards the upper part of the range, little going on in the lower reaches of harmony, uninteresting percussion, and, in most cases lyrics that are banal. Generally music that is designed to offend no-one

Almost all the tracks are about being in love, or love ending, or love unrequited, and, as such, have formed a soundtrack to generations of lovers. But, actually, what do any of these songs actually say about the human condition, or about the feelings of really being in love - as opposed to infatuation?

That having been said, this 2-CD has been played hundreds and hundreds of times in the dozen or so years since I bought it. It includes a number of tracks that I doubt I could live without: I Only Want To Be With You; The Locomotion; You've Got Your Troubles; He Ain't Heavy He's My Brother, Nights in White Satin, Catch the Wind and A Whiter Shade of Pale.

And there are certain songs that are really exempt from all but the mildest most pedantic criticisma: House of the Rising Sun, You've Lost that Loving Feeling, You'll Never Walk Alone; and Good Vibrations