The denizens of Artsville, Orstraya, are intensely, relentlessly and simplistically obsessed with race. Like the sad and bitter ol' commies who see everything in terms of class, these poor little poppets are pretty much incapable of seeing people as individuals before they are members of a racial group. This tends to make them blowhards and bores -- particular in packs, which they feel most comfortable in. And it often greatly reduces the complexity and power of their work.
This is depressing, particularly in the case of drama. Call me old fashioned, but I always thought that this form worked best when ambivalently exploring power struggles between complex and contradictory individuals.
But now, it seems you've just gotta have a black versus white theme with a clearly PC angle and not only will you get your play financed far more easily but the critics will be much more positively disposed towards it too.
Take the The White Divers of Broome, which is playing as part of The Perth International Arts Festival.
I haven't seen this play, nor will I. So I am coming from prejudice here. But much as I'd like to say otherwise, my prejudice against the Aussie theatre scene is always confirmed.
That's why I reckon it's a lay down misere that this production will have an overtly preachy and didactic tone and cardboard characters including eeevil racist imperialists and feisty, salt of the Earth lefties and non-white activists.
Critics will dutifully respond by saying how searingly insightful it is, and still relevant today -- what with the Abbott-incited race riot on Australia Day, etc, etc, blah blah blah, ad bloody nauseam.
But hey, if anyone has other ideas, please feel free to add them in comments below.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Geoffrey Rush's pompous Australian of the Year acceptance speech
It was kind of surprising that Geoffrey Rush was named Australian of the Year. There's no doubt that many Aussies think he has little to offer the role and that he has been over-rewarded already.
But there were certainly no surprises in the content of his acceptance speech. He politically vogued up a storm on many of the usual issues such as gay marriage, climate change, and asylum seekers.
I suspect the panel had a very good idea that he would do this enthusiastically, and this was one of the main reasons he got the gong. If you look at the past winners of this honour they tend to be of the cultural Left, after all. And while there are a few who could be described as apolitical, there are certainly buggerall conservatives.
As well as being true to form on these issues, he said this:
"The stories we tell ourselves as adults and to our children, in the communal dark, have a serious importance."
Obviously he was alluding mainly to art forms such as film and theatre. But I don't think it would be verballing him to say he thinks that pretty much every art form is "important".
Having met, and even worked with, many arty types over the years I know this attitude is pretty much standard. They really do think that what they do is "important". They also think that it can change society.
On both counts I believe they're seriously deluded. Art is not important. It's valuable. And it usually never changes anything. It's true that there have been some great politically themed works that have altered the course of history somewhat. But in the vast majority of cases art never has any real, demonstrable impact.
Sure, the arts can move people, make them laugh, offer some unusual and interesting insights, maybe even get them to think a little differently. But when all's said and done they're pretty small beer compared to the things that really change the world like politics, science, medicine and -- particularly these days -- global finance.
Look at Rush's own filmography. There's a lot of fine work acting work there, and some very enjoyable movies. But many of them, particularly his recent pirate-themed blockbusters, are basically pretty mindless entertainment.
And think about the Australian film "industry" as a whole. Not only do Aussies generally lack enthusiasm for homegrown filmic fare; they make a real point of avoiding the overtly political stuff that Rush would like to see even more of.
It's a sad irony that the more passionately PC a film-maker is, the greater the likelihood his film will get financed and ultimately made here -- but the less likely it is that it will find a big audience. That's basically because people are sick and tired of being cinematically hectored about how sexist, racist, homophobic, environmentally unsound and generally bad, wrong, thick and worthless they are. So the odds that he will actually change people's attitudes are about one millionth of diddly squat.
I mean, if all the movies about how racist we are as a nation had even a tiny fraction of the social impact intended by their creators everyone in Oz would be wearing black armbands, wouldn't they?
Really, luvvies in particular and artists in general should stop taking themselves so seriously.
But there were certainly no surprises in the content of his acceptance speech. He politically vogued up a storm on many of the usual issues such as gay marriage, climate change, and asylum seekers.
I suspect the panel had a very good idea that he would do this enthusiastically, and this was one of the main reasons he got the gong. If you look at the past winners of this honour they tend to be of the cultural Left, after all. And while there are a few who could be described as apolitical, there are certainly buggerall conservatives.
As well as being true to form on these issues, he said this:
"The stories we tell ourselves as adults and to our children, in the communal dark, have a serious importance."
Obviously he was alluding mainly to art forms such as film and theatre. But I don't think it would be verballing him to say he thinks that pretty much every art form is "important".
Having met, and even worked with, many arty types over the years I know this attitude is pretty much standard. They really do think that what they do is "important". They also think that it can change society.
On both counts I believe they're seriously deluded. Art is not important. It's valuable. And it usually never changes anything. It's true that there have been some great politically themed works that have altered the course of history somewhat. But in the vast majority of cases art never has any real, demonstrable impact.
Sure, the arts can move people, make them laugh, offer some unusual and interesting insights, maybe even get them to think a little differently. But when all's said and done they're pretty small beer compared to the things that really change the world like politics, science, medicine and -- particularly these days -- global finance.
Look at Rush's own filmography. There's a lot of fine work acting work there, and some very enjoyable movies. But many of them, particularly his recent pirate-themed blockbusters, are basically pretty mindless entertainment.
And think about the Australian film "industry" as a whole. Not only do Aussies generally lack enthusiasm for homegrown filmic fare; they make a real point of avoiding the overtly political stuff that Rush would like to see even more of.
It's a sad irony that the more passionately PC a film-maker is, the greater the likelihood his film will get financed and ultimately made here -- but the less likely it is that it will find a big audience. That's basically because people are sick and tired of being cinematically hectored about how sexist, racist, homophobic, environmentally unsound and generally bad, wrong, thick and worthless they are. So the odds that he will actually change people's attitudes are about one millionth of diddly squat.
I mean, if all the movies about how racist we are as a nation had even a tiny fraction of the social impact intended by their creators everyone in Oz would be wearing black armbands, wouldn't they?
Really, luvvies in particular and artists in general should stop taking themselves so seriously.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Tempest not banned by Tucson conservatives after all
Yesterday I was reading The Australian and one story stood out as being quite unusual. It was a brief item about how Shakespeare's play The Tempest had been banned in schools in Tucson, Arizona. The thing that made it noticeable was that conservatives were behind this push:
The ban is part of a battle over Arizona's treatment of its Mexican-immigrant population, and the extent to which cultural and racial differences should be examined in class.
The Tempest is studied in many US schools for its perceived insights into racism and colonialism. One of its protagonists is Caliban, a black slave on an island ruled by Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan.
Yet the play has fallen foul of conservative Arizonans disgusted that state schools offer classes in what they regard as increasingly radicalised Mexican-American studies.
This did strike me as somewhat odd, because I do tend to associate censorship with the politically correct Left. Not only do they do it overtly from time to time (such as with the Bolt case here in Australia) but they've been indulging in it covertly for decades all over the Anglosphere by characterizing any kind of speech or writing they don't like as sexist, racist, or homophobic, etc. They are particularly angry about many works in the Western canon. Those lefty quackademics sure as hell loathe those "dead white males" -- Shakespeare in particular.
Still, I accepted that the story -- which has been reported by many big mainstream media outlets -- was true, and conservatives were guilty this time. Perhaps this was the exception that proved the rule? Or maybe they were trying to be trendily leftist themselves -- you know, by "subverting the dominant paradigm"?
Anyway I did a bit of Googling and discovered a blog post stating that the story, which seems to have come from this Salon article, was not accurate after all:
Sensing that Biggers’ story did not sound correct, nor comport with my understanding of the law in this subject area here in Arizona, I was able to make contact with officials at TUSD over the Martin Luther King extended holiday weekend and spoke with an official on Monday, even though the school system was officially closed. It is an understatement to say they were dismayed and concerned; it is “disingenuous to say ‘banned’” said Cara Rene, Communications Director for the TUSD.
The author of that particular post links to this press release from the educational organization accused of the ban, which opens with this clear statement: "Tucson Unified Schools District has not banned any books as has been widely and incorrectly reported."
And later:
Other books have also been falsely reported as being banned by TUSD. It has been incorrectly reported that William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” is not allowed for instruction. Teachers may continue to use materials in their classrooms as appropriate for the course curriculum. “The Tempest” and other books approved for curriculum are still viable options for instructors.
Hopefully The Oz and all those other big outfits will make a correction and admit they were wrong. I doubt they will, though.
It's understandable that they ran with it in the first place. When you are prejudiced against conservatives and believe that they are the more censorious group you're more likely to believe such a claim.
It's depressing that there are so many people like this in the meeja, even those in the thrall of the eeevil Rupert Murdoch. Still, it's also a little heartening to know that my prejudices were confirmed, and that conservatives turned out not to be guilty in this case.
The ban is part of a battle over Arizona's treatment of its Mexican-immigrant population, and the extent to which cultural and racial differences should be examined in class.
The Tempest is studied in many US schools for its perceived insights into racism and colonialism. One of its protagonists is Caliban, a black slave on an island ruled by Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan.
Yet the play has fallen foul of conservative Arizonans disgusted that state schools offer classes in what they regard as increasingly radicalised Mexican-American studies.
This did strike me as somewhat odd, because I do tend to associate censorship with the politically correct Left. Not only do they do it overtly from time to time (such as with the Bolt case here in Australia) but they've been indulging in it covertly for decades all over the Anglosphere by characterizing any kind of speech or writing they don't like as sexist, racist, or homophobic, etc. They are particularly angry about many works in the Western canon. Those lefty quackademics sure as hell loathe those "dead white males" -- Shakespeare in particular.
Still, I accepted that the story -- which has been reported by many big mainstream media outlets -- was true, and conservatives were guilty this time. Perhaps this was the exception that proved the rule? Or maybe they were trying to be trendily leftist themselves -- you know, by "subverting the dominant paradigm"?
Anyway I did a bit of Googling and discovered a blog post stating that the story, which seems to have come from this Salon article, was not accurate after all:
Sensing that Biggers’ story did not sound correct, nor comport with my understanding of the law in this subject area here in Arizona, I was able to make contact with officials at TUSD over the Martin Luther King extended holiday weekend and spoke with an official on Monday, even though the school system was officially closed. It is an understatement to say they were dismayed and concerned; it is “disingenuous to say ‘banned’” said Cara Rene, Communications Director for the TUSD.
The author of that particular post links to this press release from the educational organization accused of the ban, which opens with this clear statement: "Tucson Unified Schools District has not banned any books as has been widely and incorrectly reported."
And later:
Other books have also been falsely reported as being banned by TUSD. It has been incorrectly reported that William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” is not allowed for instruction. Teachers may continue to use materials in their classrooms as appropriate for the course curriculum. “The Tempest” and other books approved for curriculum are still viable options for instructors.
Hopefully The Oz and all those other big outfits will make a correction and admit they were wrong. I doubt they will, though.
It's understandable that they ran with it in the first place. When you are prejudiced against conservatives and believe that they are the more censorious group you're more likely to believe such a claim.
It's depressing that there are so many people like this in the meeja, even those in the thrall of the eeevil Rupert Murdoch. Still, it's also a little heartening to know that my prejudices were confirmed, and that conservatives turned out not to be guilty in this case.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
As the World Tipped is pompous, predictable and unoriginal
As the World Tipped is the latest lemon from the warmist wankers of Oz theatre. As you'll see from the video below it's basically just one not bad idea flogged to death over a drawn out period at massive expense. Sure, it might look pretty specky at first when a stage tilts on its axis with real live actors scrambling for safety, but when that's basically all that happens for the entire show the thrill is inevitably lost.
That said, the crew do a great job in pulling this off and the performers throw their all into it. There are some nice visual effects, too.
It's the script that sucks -- and hard. There's no thematic complexity or development in it. It's got nothing new or original to say. It's just another long, hectoring bleet from some spoiled brat blowhards with far more money (much of it yours, BTW) than talent.
The po-faced exhortation at the end that we DEMAND CHANGE is sooo predictable, isn't it? They've got only one shot in their locker, and they just keep firing it over and over. Hell, if there were any justice, they would have run out of ammo long ago. But governments keep throwing money at them so they can keep on buying more!
And isn't it telling that it's not "change" on its own but "demand change". That's because the production's creators and their fellow travellers in the audience have decided they ain't changin' for nobody. They want to be the ones calling the shots, see.
The inclusion of this word reveals a truly toxic level of sanctimony as well as a nauseating sense of entitlement: We, the superior, sensitive arty set just have to continue complaining about things; keep shrieking our demands. They, the brainless proles, have to actually make the changes.
Apart from the obvious odium of this born-to-rule bolshevism, it's just so bloody boring, isn't it? The public turned off years ago, and there's no doubt that even many of the denizens of Artsville itself are getting mighty sick of this crap.
Still, the deep green lefty warmists maintain their stranglehold on arts funding in Australia (and abroad) so it will keep being thrown at such pompous projects for a long while yet, I'm afraid.
That said, the crew do a great job in pulling this off and the performers throw their all into it. There are some nice visual effects, too.
It's the script that sucks -- and hard. There's no thematic complexity or development in it. It's got nothing new or original to say. It's just another long, hectoring bleet from some spoiled brat blowhards with far more money (much of it yours, BTW) than talent.
The po-faced exhortation at the end that we DEMAND CHANGE is sooo predictable, isn't it? They've got only one shot in their locker, and they just keep firing it over and over. Hell, if there were any justice, they would have run out of ammo long ago. But governments keep throwing money at them so they can keep on buying more!
And isn't it telling that it's not "change" on its own but "demand change". That's because the production's creators and their fellow travellers in the audience have decided they ain't changin' for nobody. They want to be the ones calling the shots, see.
The inclusion of this word reveals a truly toxic level of sanctimony as well as a nauseating sense of entitlement: We, the superior, sensitive arty set just have to continue complaining about things; keep shrieking our demands. They, the brainless proles, have to actually make the changes.
Apart from the obvious odium of this born-to-rule bolshevism, it's just so bloody boring, isn't it? The public turned off years ago, and there's no doubt that even many of the denizens of Artsville itself are getting mighty sick of this crap.
Still, the deep green lefty warmists maintain their stranglehold on arts funding in Australia (and abroad) so it will keep being thrown at such pompous projects for a long while yet, I'm afraid.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Tim Minchin's "Woody Allen Jesus" song axed from Christmas show
One thing that has long fascinated me about the denizens of Artsville is how they put so much effort into provoking Christians, then get all upset when they actually succeed.
The latest example of this strange phenomenon involves Tim Minchin. The Aussie entertainer penned a song mocking Christianity and recorded it for Jonathon Ross's Christmas show. But the performance has been pulled, ostensibly because it didn't fit editorially. But it's pretty clear that's been done out of fear of offending God botherers.
Sure, it must be extremely annoying to be asked to create and perform something specifically for a show only to see it removed from the final broadcast. But what did he expect? And why did ITV commission it in the first place? Hell, it was for a Christmas special, fergawdsake! Surely they knew that if they got Minchin to do a song it wouldn't be your usual Chrissy goo about "chestnuts roasting on open fires" and "folks dressed up like Eskimos".
Of course, arty types all over the Western world will be arcing up over this act of censorship. But when it comes to far worse acts by members of another religion, the silence is deafening. If you provoke members of the Religion of Peace, people die. Surely that's more disturbing and sinister, isn't it?
Minchin has never mocked Mohammed in the way that he did Jesus in this song. And with good reason. If he had, he could be looking over his shoulder for years to come.
It's one thing to have some TV producer wuss out of televising your spot so you have to whop it on Youtube instead. But that's much less unpleasant than being attacked in your own home by an axe-wielding zealot, isn't it? Because that's what happened to Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who had the temerity to draw a cartoon of Mohammed.
And still on the subject of thin-skinned religious types: Tom Cruise was also a guest on the show. Imagine if Minchin had done a song taking the piss out of Scientology? I doubt that would have even been considered in the first place, let alone commissioned.
Still, at least Scientologists just sue you. They don't try to kill you ...
The latest example of this strange phenomenon involves Tim Minchin. The Aussie entertainer penned a song mocking Christianity and recorded it for Jonathon Ross's Christmas show. But the performance has been pulled, ostensibly because it didn't fit editorially. But it's pretty clear that's been done out of fear of offending God botherers.
Sure, it must be extremely annoying to be asked to create and perform something specifically for a show only to see it removed from the final broadcast. But what did he expect? And why did ITV commission it in the first place? Hell, it was for a Christmas special, fergawdsake! Surely they knew that if they got Minchin to do a song it wouldn't be your usual Chrissy goo about "chestnuts roasting on open fires" and "folks dressed up like Eskimos".
Of course, arty types all over the Western world will be arcing up over this act of censorship. But when it comes to far worse acts by members of another religion, the silence is deafening. If you provoke members of the Religion of Peace, people die. Surely that's more disturbing and sinister, isn't it?
Minchin has never mocked Mohammed in the way that he did Jesus in this song. And with good reason. If he had, he could be looking over his shoulder for years to come.
It's one thing to have some TV producer wuss out of televising your spot so you have to whop it on Youtube instead. But that's much less unpleasant than being attacked in your own home by an axe-wielding zealot, isn't it? Because that's what happened to Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who had the temerity to draw a cartoon of Mohammed.
And still on the subject of thin-skinned religious types: Tom Cruise was also a guest on the show. Imagine if Minchin had done a song taking the piss out of Scientology? I doubt that would have even been considered in the first place, let alone commissioned.
Still, at least Scientologists just sue you. They don't try to kill you ...
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Spicks and Speck-tacular success shows power of the ABC
You are probably aware of the light entertainment "comedy" show Spicks and Specks. I
have only watched the music trivia program a couple of times myself. It was just so lame, so puerile, so ABC I couldn't last more than a couple of minutes. Like so many of that organization's projects, it had a touch of Play School about it. You know, "there are people with games and stories to tell ...".
Amazingly, it's been one of their ABC's most popular shows for yonks. It's finally come to a close after several years and the cast are touring a live version of it as a kind of long, loving goodbye to all the fans.
I noticed a huge billboard for this production in Northbridge recently and that's what prompted this post. See, I was gobsmacked that there would be such a big, live production resulting from that TV show. Apart from the content being so excruciatingly piss-weak the format itself seems so anti-theatrical.
I mean, it's amazing that people would happily watch smug, witless knobs (badly) performing stupid music-themed parlour games on television, and for free. But how retarded must they be to actually pay to see this kind of crap live?
Answer: very. There seem to be an awful lot of people like this out there, too, if this quote from the show's official website is any guide:
Back in 2007 Adam, Alan and Myf promised Australia that they would tour the greatest ever stage show loosely based on a music trivia show. The Spicks and Speck-tacular was born, and played to more than 200,000 fans…
This tour has only just started, so it's hard to know how well it's been selling. But it's reasonable to assume it's been getting full houses.
And what does this say about our culture -- apart from the obvious fact that a depressingly high number of adult Australians are actually mental infants? Well, it reveals the vast power and reach of the national broadcaster.
ABC management gave this silly project the green light in the first place, which is astonishing itself. (This couldn't have been the best project in its category to choose from, surely?) But not only did they choose it, they stayed with it until it attracted a small but loyal audience.
Therefore deemed a "success" by the higher-ups it just kept going on and on. Over the years it appears to have got the attention, and won the affection, of every pop music obsessed simpleton in the country. That demographic constitutes the nichiest of niche markets, of course. But in a country of 22 million, it still adds up to a helluva lot of people -- people who are happy to hand over real money to see their slightly less cretinous idols make fools of themselves right there in front of them.
Basically, free of commercial constraints, and with lots of taxpayers' money keeping it afloat, the show got a leg up into the marketplace. And now it has become what seems very likely to be a profitable venture in its own right. Which just goes to show that crap subsidized by the state can actually become commercially successful crap as a result.
Sure, we knew that already ... Still, wouldn't it be great if the ABC got behind stuff that's original, creative and, you know, good instead? Just think how much more interesting our popular culture would be then.
Amazingly, it's been one of their ABC's most popular shows for yonks. It's finally come to a close after several years and the cast are touring a live version of it as a kind of long, loving goodbye to all the fans.
I noticed a huge billboard for this production in Northbridge recently and that's what prompted this post. See, I was gobsmacked that there would be such a big, live production resulting from that TV show. Apart from the content being so excruciatingly piss-weak the format itself seems so anti-theatrical.
I mean, it's amazing that people would happily watch smug, witless knobs (badly) performing stupid music-themed parlour games on television, and for free. But how retarded must they be to actually pay to see this kind of crap live?
Answer: very. There seem to be an awful lot of people like this out there, too, if this quote from the show's official website is any guide:
Back in 2007 Adam, Alan and Myf promised Australia that they would tour the greatest ever stage show loosely based on a music trivia show. The Spicks and Speck-tacular was born, and played to more than 200,000 fans…
This tour has only just started, so it's hard to know how well it's been selling. But it's reasonable to assume it's been getting full houses.
And what does this say about our culture -- apart from the obvious fact that a depressingly high number of adult Australians are actually mental infants? Well, it reveals the vast power and reach of the national broadcaster.
ABC management gave this silly project the green light in the first place, which is astonishing itself. (This couldn't have been the best project in its category to choose from, surely?) But not only did they choose it, they stayed with it until it attracted a small but loyal audience.
Therefore deemed a "success" by the higher-ups it just kept going on and on. Over the years it appears to have got the attention, and won the affection, of every pop music obsessed simpleton in the country. That demographic constitutes the nichiest of niche markets, of course. But in a country of 22 million, it still adds up to a helluva lot of people -- people who are happy to hand over real money to see their slightly less cretinous idols make fools of themselves right there in front of them.
Basically, free of commercial constraints, and with lots of taxpayers' money keeping it afloat, the show got a leg up into the marketplace. And now it has become what seems very likely to be a profitable venture in its own right. Which just goes to show that crap subsidized by the state can actually become commercially successful crap as a result.
Sure, we knew that already ... Still, wouldn't it be great if the ABC got behind stuff that's original, creative and, you know, good instead? Just think how much more interesting our popular culture would be then.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Queen, punk rock and New Musical Express
Watching ABC2 earlier in the week I saw the first part of a fascinating two-part documentary series about the rock band Queen called Queen: Days of Our Lives.
Being in my late forties now, of course I recognized all their hits. Way back when they were at the height of their fame I certainly liked their songs, as so many people did. But I didn't see them as anything special. I thought they were much like all other rock bands -- a bunch of overrated, preening egomaniacs, basically. Freddie Mercury in particular struck me as a bit of a tool.
I'm a lot older now, and -- I hope -- a bit wiser. So as I watched the doco I saw the band completely afresh. I have no musical ability, and very little knowledge of it, but I could finally understand just how brilliant these guys really were. They were truly unique and way ahead of everyone else in the field.
They were all exceptionally talented in their own way. But Freddie Mercury was particularly gifted. Not only did he have an incredible voice -- one now widely viewed as being one of the finest rock voices ever -- he also penned many of their best songs.
The doco was full of interesting anecdotes and reminiscences. One of the things that came through strongly was how the British music press of the day really detested the band. One well known illustration of this loathing was when NME interviewed Freddie Mercury and ran it with the headline: "Is this man a prat?" The band became so sick and tired of the constant sneering from vicious rock hacks that they gave up trying to please them entirely.
I think it's fair to say that the music press in Britain at the time -- like the local arts commentariat of today -- were a pretty bolshie bunch. So it's not surprising that they were deeply hostile to the flashy, witty quartet that was Queen.
It also makes sense that the music press gave a lot of positive coverage to punk music, and clearly had much to do with its rise. (NME in particular was closely associated with it, apparently.) After all, punk was clearly more an expression of inchoate political rage than an actual musical genre in its own right. Just listen to that crap and you'll know what I mean. (In a way it was a bit like today's stupid Occupy Movement, just a lot louder and snarlier -- albeit undeniably more creative as well.)
As is so often the case, the critics of the day were completely and utterly wrong. Not only did Queen sell squillions of records all over the globe at the time, many of today's musical pundits now rightly see them as a truly great rock band who made a huge and enduring contribution to popular culture.
The second part of Queen: Days of Our Lives is on Wednesday night next week. Definitely worth watching, IMO.
Being in my late forties now, of course I recognized all their hits. Way back when they were at the height of their fame I certainly liked their songs, as so many people did. But I didn't see them as anything special. I thought they were much like all other rock bands -- a bunch of overrated, preening egomaniacs, basically. Freddie Mercury in particular struck me as a bit of a tool.
I'm a lot older now, and -- I hope -- a bit wiser. So as I watched the doco I saw the band completely afresh. I have no musical ability, and very little knowledge of it, but I could finally understand just how brilliant these guys really were. They were truly unique and way ahead of everyone else in the field.
They were all exceptionally talented in their own way. But Freddie Mercury was particularly gifted. Not only did he have an incredible voice -- one now widely viewed as being one of the finest rock voices ever -- he also penned many of their best songs.
The doco was full of interesting anecdotes and reminiscences. One of the things that came through strongly was how the British music press of the day really detested the band. One well known illustration of this loathing was when NME interviewed Freddie Mercury and ran it with the headline: "Is this man a prat?" The band became so sick and tired of the constant sneering from vicious rock hacks that they gave up trying to please them entirely.
I think it's fair to say that the music press in Britain at the time -- like the local arts commentariat of today -- were a pretty bolshie bunch. So it's not surprising that they were deeply hostile to the flashy, witty quartet that was Queen.
It also makes sense that the music press gave a lot of positive coverage to punk music, and clearly had much to do with its rise. (NME in particular was closely associated with it, apparently.) After all, punk was clearly more an expression of inchoate political rage than an actual musical genre in its own right. Just listen to that crap and you'll know what I mean. (In a way it was a bit like today's stupid Occupy Movement, just a lot louder and snarlier -- albeit undeniably more creative as well.)
As is so often the case, the critics of the day were completely and utterly wrong. Not only did Queen sell squillions of records all over the globe at the time, many of today's musical pundits now rightly see them as a truly great rock band who made a huge and enduring contribution to popular culture.
The second part of Queen: Days of Our Lives is on Wednesday night next week. Definitely worth watching, IMO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)