How cruelly they had been deceived

I'm watching "Last Choir Standing", and feeling distinctly snobby - more about the programme itself than the singers, I think. It's promoting the idea that Russell Watson is an "opera singer", for one thing.

No choir that I've ever sung in has found it necessary to do actions to the music, like in nursery school.

I watched it because I'm interested in the idea of getting people to sing. If this is all they aim at, though, what's the point? Why aim low? It's patronising. Most of them would get a big shock if they ventured near the audition for a good amateur choir.

I'd argue, though I don't particularly like it, for the technical skill of Queen, and pragmatically the RPO has had to do that sort of thing to pay the rent. Perhaps the question is whether a quorum of intimations of skill and subtlety can be injected into the proceedings. Ditto the umpteenth performance of some deemed-warhorse to a largely corporate beano audience or whatever.

I watched part of 'Last Choir Standing' (by accident, because it was on after Doctor Who) and and couldn't quite believe how the judges were making their choices. They voted in favour of one choir that sounded both out of time and out of tune to me (it was hard to judge how good they really were because the programme didn't show any complete piece of music being sung). They rejected another choir, who sounded beautiful, because their dresses were wrong!  

The final straw was when they laughed at the choir who sat in a circle and did that harmonic 'meditation'-style chanting. Yes, it was unconventional, but at least they were trying something interesting and it was actually pleasant to listen to -- certainly not worthy of being laughed at  

If lacking all respect for the programme and the judges makes me a snob then so be it, I will wear the label with pride.

Was Russell Watson one of the judges? I didn't recognise him.

I have fond memories of a TV advert for the first of the LSO's 'Classic Rock' recordings, which featured an orchestral arrangement of the Rolling Stones' 'Paint It Black' - not heard it in ages, but I remember being very disappointed when I heard Jagger and co's original version.

I think there's a huge section of the public - a Nixonian 'silent majority' - who don't actually like music all that much.  Yet they feel the need for it to fill certain uncomfortably 'silent' gaps at dinner parties, etc.  Hence, the popularity of 'bad MOR' (there's actually a lot of 'good MOR' including the complete works of Bacharach and David), orchestral versions of the classics, etc, culminating in those clunky outdoor 'culinary concerts' where the 1812 Overture is a side-order to your picnic.

Am I a musical snob if I don't like musical hybrids like that?  It seems a particular affliction of choral stars trying to make it big, who can't seem to cope with the idea of producing a CD that only contains music that was intended for their vocal style (religious, classical etc) so they have to chuck in this awful mess of cringeworthy versions of pop stuff.  The Choirboys for instance.  Look at this unforgiveable tracklist:

1 Ecce Homo
2 Tears In Heaven
3 Panis Angelicus
4 Do You Hear What I Hear?
5 Walking In The Air
6 In Paradisum
7 The Lord Bless You And Keep You
8 Pie Jesu
9 Danny Boy
10 The Lord Is My Shepherd (Theme From 'the Vicar Of Dibley')
11 He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother
12 Corpus Christi Carol
13 O For The Wings Of A Dove
14 Agnus Dei (Lamb Of God)
15 Miserere

Now I'm sorry but can there be any excuse under the sun for track 11?  What moron dreamed that one up?  It's beyond awful, even the thought of it makes me want to pull my ears off.   They can take 2 out as well for me.  And 5.  And 13. And 9.

I'll admit I bought it last year, because I do like Howard Goodall's version of The Lord is My Shepherd, but the whole CD is so tainted with tripe that I burned 3 tracks and gave the rest of it my my mum.