Britain's Got Talent is finally over for 2009, and the judges were not able to give Susan Boyle the glass slipper. She's had a fine time at the ball, and there will be a dance or two yet for her - certainly more than she ever dreamed of doing in her life to date - but we're already seeing that "happily ever after" is not likely in the cards. (In the interests of full disclosure, the name of my blog comes from a long-dead Boyle whose name was attached to a street, and then a neighbourhood. Boyle Street itself no longer exists as such - it has been replaced by a number.)
The Cinderella fairy tale is an interesting and persistent story, full of nastiness and a resolution that doesn't ring true (as Stephen Sondheim points out in his satirical Into the Woods). Cinderella is NOT a princess, and no amount of dressing her up and making a fuss over her will make her a princess. Even if she doesn't deserve the miseries of life with her step-mother and step-sisters, she is no more at home as a princess than she is as a housemaid.
The fairy tale helps children through the roughest times of their young lives - those times when they are convinced they are unloved, and that their parents can't really be their parents. It is a story which offers hope: hold on and some day your prince will come and you will be recognized for who you really are.
Like Ritalin, the story is a drug which acts differently on children and adults. The story that saves children from their misery will guarantee misery to any adult who clings to it. Britain's Got Talent struck gold with this story when it featured tenor Paul Potts, so they are repeating it with singer Susan Boyle. The price for a starring role is high - and the damage done to millions of others is unfathomable. We are being encouraged in a delusion.
Read what the critics say about his live appearances. Last year's sensation has had a rough ride - with lots of praise for the story, but lots of criticism as well. His mishmash album, carefully engineered, pleases his fans but not purists. In the past year there have been revelations: Paul Potts had already had a fair deal of coaching, including a masterclass in Italy with Pavarotti, and despite his considerable experience in amateur operas several of the reviews from his much-touted tour suggest he is not really equipped to be a credible opera star- although he sings the one Puccini aria well. His fame is based on having been touched by the fairy godmother of Simon Cowell and company, and from the reviews it looks like his fame outstrips his talent. Those of us with some knowledge of singing foresaw this when we watched his overhyped overproduced rendition of Nessun Dorma in the competition.
[A brief aside about singers of opera. To be truly successful, an opera singer has not traditionally required stunning good looks - particularly the tenors. They must have an extraordinary instrument, true, but there are many other qualities they must have - and those qualities act as multipliers in the world of opera. If any of them is a zero, then the chances of a career is a zero. These include an ear for mimicking languages (and preferably the ability to speak and understand several), an ability to take direction, robust health, musicianship, reliability, punctuality, musical taste, a grounding in music history, and an awareness of musical politics. A show like BGT can catapult you to fame and riches, but it will not validate your career as a serious opera singer. Maybe that doesn't matter; if you've cashed in to the tune of 5 million pounds, as Potts is reputed to have done, maybe the serious career as an opera singer has been replaced by the more lucrative career as a singing celebrity.]
Enter Susan Boyle.
Let's get a few things straight.
First, Boyle's been singing in her community for a long time. This is not a secret talent - merely one that hasn't had a light shone on it by BGT.
Second, Boyle's hearty manner is classic British music hall; her figure, face, and demeanour are of a type which the younger generation might not recall, but the rest of us do: Kate Carney, Tessie O'Shea, Hetty King, Marie Lloyd. Or the famous American Sophie Tucker. When Boyle came out to sing, I expected her to be good. She had a cocky, earthy presence. She is used to entertaining with her voice.
Third, all the hype about how nobody expected anything from her because she looked frumpy etc only shows how narrow their consumption has become. Boyle is not unique - she is one of a whole legion of performers whose type is not in fashion right now. She's attractive in a different way from our overprocessed entertainment industry norms - but people who suggest she is an ugly duckling need to have their glasses checked.
Fourth, her choice of I Dreamed A Dream was inspired. It's a dead easy song to sing and highly charged. Add some reverb and some lighting effects, and any half decent belter will seem impressive. Does that mean a major talent is standing there? You can't tell from that song. But the fact that the judges were so easily won over, despite the weak low notes and lack of finesse on the top, suggests either they don't know enough about musical theatre or they were playing it up because the Cinderella story is gold in their coffers.
Boyle did not manage to be as impressive with other numbers - and that should tell people something.
I like what I have seen of Susan Boyle, and I am happy that she will have some time in the sun. It sounds like she's going to live some of her dream, and that's great. Does it mean she's a great talent? Not necessarily.
And this is where things get nasty.
I know many local amateur or barely-known singers who could perform the living daylights out of that song - and then go on to prove themselves in repertoire far more difficult than La Boyle assayed.
And there are many people who THINK they have a talent that only needs to be recognized; they are waiting for a fairy godmother to see them for who they really are. Except it's not who they are. They don't have that much talent. Instead of understanding this, and finding other ways to satisfy their desire for community and value, they hang on to a dream that is bound to be frustrated. And it is the promotion of that delusion that is so ugly in these talent shows.
There aren't enough fairy godmothers to go around, and even if there were, what would it serve? Lots of people with second-rate talent being fussed over and elevated while people with greater talent are ignored because they aren't good material for a story.
The Vocal Arts Festival is happening here in Edmonton over the next month. Lots of young aspiring classical singers - some of them with breathtakingly beautiful voices and huge accomplishment. They have already devoted their lives to an art form, and they are investing in it. No-one is whisking them off to record with the Czech National Symphony. No-one is cooing over their YouTube videos. The depth of talent in Canada's singers is astonishing, but that doesn't fit the Cinderella story. To sell the Cinderella story, the star must be obscure and unpolished - even if it means their eventual disillusionment.
For the general public, there is no excitement to a story about someone who is dedicated to their studies, who gradually improves their skills, and who eventually enters the professional ranks through the usual means. These people have more chance of longterm success than Potts or Boyle, but who gets our attention and energy? The Cinderellas.
Why? Because we still want to believe the story can happen to us. We still cling to some of our childish wish that someone will discover our hidden talents, our "true" value. So we uphold the story and pronounce the mediocre or passable as amazing and unique - because if it can happen for them, it can happen for us.
The people who feed this delusion - the television producers who make money off this story over and over again - are they cynical or do they really believe these people are major talents? If the former, think about the ethical implications. If the latter, why are so many people swallowing it? The people watching these programs and waxing rhapsodic about the finalists must never attend their local theatres and concert halls or they would understand that they are being duped. By using glitzy production values to fool people into thinking they are experiencing major talent, the producers are creating a false scale - and millions are buying it without knowing that the standards of talent are being degraded and replaced by hoopla.
Isn't it time we all grew up?
That's well written, but I disagree. I disagree with your interpretation of Cinderella. I see the story as more of an allegory about how one should keep an eye out for an opportunity, rather than one about hoping for a big lottery win. Her fairy godmother is her conscious more than her literal Great Gazoo.
ReplyDeleteIn crushingly stratified Olde English society, there were few ways for a cinder maid to get ahead - especially one being repressed by her powerful, cruel, sisters and step-mother. She didn't neglect her common-sensical duties by selling her donkey for 'magic' beans or anything, she just went to a fancy ball. A ball that she previously thought was above her station. Good for her - sensible, kind, smart, stubborn, proactive, *and* beautiful. She would've succeeded even if she hadn't met her prince.
As much as I never watch these BGT-type shows, I like that it gives the average Joe/Jane a shot at some notoriety. I imagine that there are millions of people out there who had to make practical decisions not to follow their dreams, and that this is their shot. Even if they don't make it, they'll have had fun trying, which is the secret driving force behind doing this. Maybe it'll provide closure, who knows? People line up to be extras whenever a movie rolls into town...it's just a kick, it's just fun, it's just karaoke, it's just going to Vegas and gambling, or buying the odd lottery ticket. They're not trying to subvert the skilled-trade-journeyman singers, just jumping at a longshot opportunity and enjoying the whole process.
Also, I don't believe that it's a zero-sum game. More attention for these singers will not draw money and opportunity away from 'real' singers any more than the space program drew science away from the regular sciences. In fact, it inspired people to be interested in science from a young age. It's like the TV show Mythbusters - there's very good science techniques there (proof of concept, control groups, etc), while still being entertaining to a broad cross-section of viewers. As much as I hate to admit it, because I don't personally like them, these reality programs are good for singing.
"Isn't it time we all grew up?"
If leaving behind all of your dreams is growing up...then 'no'.
In most versions of Cinderella, there is an element of a magic external force. And these shows are like that too - I know extremely talented people who have gone out for Canadian Idol, for instance, and not made it past the first round because their story wasn't appealing although their talent was higher than some of the finalists. When I auditioned for - and got - a part in a reality TV show, the producers were very up front about how they were choosing people not entirely on the basis of talent, but on the basis of the story. So I know something about this process from the inside.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the contenstants are then presented to the public as if the talent is extraordinary. It's a lie, and it sets up crippling false hopes - for the audience members who see themselves in the same situation. I don't see that as inconsequential.
One singing teacher of my acquaintance once told me "My students will never be singers. They don't have the talent for that. What they are really doing is therapy."
She hadn't actually asked them if that was what they were doing. So the singers thought they were learning to sing, and the teacher thought she was doing therapy. The singers are paying in time, sweat and money and they're not getting what they paid for.
Eventually they will stop, feeling as if they failed. In the meantime, all that wasted energy that could have gone to something that would really help them.
I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that the producers don't blow warm air up the skirts of the contestants. Also, I watched the novel-writing show that you were talking about and enjoyed it, even though I could see that some parts were manipulated. I can't even remember who won (if you did = congratulations; if you didn't = congratulations anyway), but it had some entertaining value and I mused over whether to enter something similar. Notably, I wasn't crushed, and was happier knowing that something like that existed. Plus, bragging rights for knowing (sort of) one of the contestants.
ReplyDelete"What they are really doing is therapy...[the teacher] hadn't actually asked them if that was what they were doing." If she didn't ask them, then how does she know what her students are getting out of it? That's a huge assumption. My 70 year old aunt took singing lessons and now enjoys singing in the local choir. No illusions of grandeur. I know a lot of people through sports who had a lot of training and made junior, semi-pro, college, etc. None of them was crushed by not making it as a professional athlete. None of them have ever complained about the hard work or sacrifice, or regretted doing it. Most of them never thought they would turn pro anyway, but just enjoyed playing the game. Or, just as likely, liked hanging around 'the guys' and scheming to do their best as an individual and as a team...just like a theatre troupe or the members of a band would do. They just did it because it's fun. Period. Gotta do something.