Britain's Got Narrative
First of all, let me stipulate that I absolutely do not begrudge Susan Boyle her 15 weeks of fame. I hope her Christmas album goes platinum. I really do. Why shouldn't thousands choose her over all the crappy alternatives out there? And we can be glad Susan Boyle is (presumably) unlikely to pull a Charlotte Church and take her million pounds to a topless beach.
However, it's time to examine what's going on with Britain's Got Talent. We've seen Paul Potts; now we've seen Susan Boyle. The pattern is obvious. The narrative is unmistakable. The key to the whole thing is revealed in those moments when Paul Potts talks about being bullied in school, or when Susan Boyle confesses she's never been kissed. I think the way the whole thing is rigged, with the crowd trained to start cheering so you really can't tell how good they're singing, is pretty impressive. (And note the supporting role played by the Timon and Pumbaa characters waiting in the wings.) I was fooled into thinking Boyle was better than good the first time I heard the clip. Alex Ross was sufficiently impressed with Paul Potts (or maybe I should say the Paul Potts phenomenon, which at least had the virtue of promoting Puccini, not a pretentious pop musical that needs no more grease applied to its already slick skids) to link to him from his blog. The show is brilliantly manipulative, and what they're selling is:
wounded inner child finds redemption through show biz.I like that narrative better than Extreme Makeover: Home Edition's redemption through McMansion, but that's not saying much.
Meanwhile, Britain's Got Talent is an excellent reminder for us music snobs just how much it is true that, in the opinion of a great mass of people, music itself ought never aspire to the so-called condition of music. It wants to be a sound track for something else.
Umie the Umlaut says, "ask your doctor about the Fredösphere!"
2 Comments:
Great post, Fred. I have to admit I missed all the hoopla and thank you for posting a link to the video. Indeed, it is almost impossible to actually hear Susan sing, and honestly her voice is clear and nuanced, but far from well-balanced and refined. I think "I've got a Dream" was a poor choice because it exposes her lack of low notes, but that is secondary. I think you are right that her success is more about the drama of it all than actually about her talent, which is without a doubt considerable regardless of what I wrote above. The show is edited in such a way that we are simply thrilled with the judge's comments, not really taking in the fact that based purely on her appearance and demeanor they weren't expecting anything good at all, let alone what came out of Susan's mouth. But why shouldn't a 47 year-old from a village in Britain who's never been kissed have a beautiful, expressive voice? That is all.
Interesting post: the phrase that caught my attention was "soundtrack for something else." In our world of limited attention spans and all children left behind, I think the masses really aren't educated enough to know that she's OK, maybe even good, but not great. I mean, when is the last time anyone's ever heard a recent pop song and said "wow... that's really great music, something I'll want to listen to in 20 years"? For the general public, it's all about context, drama, glitz, and choosing sides, and people love underdogs, even if they really aren't that good.
Post a Comment
<< Home