Musical Talent

I'm sitting in a coffee shop mulling over some ideas for a blog post. As usual there is background music. It so happens that it's not to my taste, but that's normal. Sometimes I'm lucky and get good music to go with good coffee, more often not, but I am not the arbiter of taste for the world, or even for Wellingborough. No doubt more people will enjoy the music that is playing than would enjoy something I chose.

My issue is with what degree of talent it takes to be successful and make money from music. For many people this isn't important. Music is about satisfaction and enjoyment, and I am sure that is true for the performer I just heard. But he is also making money, a recording company has paid him in anticipation of making a substantial profit. So what does it take?

The other evening I was at an organ recital by one of the world's leading organists. His talent is undeniable, as is the amount of hard work he has put in to reach his present eminence. At the other end of the scale, a few years ago I was at a concert at a quite prestigious venue given by a local amateur orchestra. I paid a decent amount for a ticket, and they played with enthusiasm and enjoyment, but less skill. The violin section, for example did not so much attack a note as gang up on it and smother it with sheer weight of numbers. One cannot expect the same degree of skill from amateur performers as professionals, and one of the differences may be the accuracy with which violinists can tune their instrument and then hit a given tone exactly. But this failing spoiled the concert. Over and again a phrase began with a smudge rather than a note or chord, and severely detracted from the music. And the ticket price was not significantly less than for a top notch professional performance. I've not been to hear that orchestra again. Money is short, and I prefer to spend it on things I really enjoy.

I did not pay for the music in this coffee shop other than indirectly through the price of the coffee and food, which is in my view good value anyway. But in principle, the same question arises. I was sitting here, relaxed, soaking up the sunlight streaming through the window, barely aware of the music. Then it happened. The singer went for a high note that needed to be held. It was obvious from the chord the group was playing and the general direction of the melody what the note was supposed to be. He missed it, and not by a small amount. He then tried to hold the note he had missed, but his voice was not capable of it, and he wavered around in the general area of the note he had missed, without ever actually finding it. It was excruciating. And suddenly music I was happy to pay no attention to had been forced, painfully forced, onto my attention.

The singer lacked talent. He could neither hit nor maintain a note, which factors are the essence of singing. And it was recorded! The technology exists to correct such errors. Either no-one noticed or cared, or perhaps if it was pointed out the singer was offended. The singing produced was his style, and if you didn't like it, tough. Who knows? But why should lack of talent be rewarded with a recording contract? The question of musical taste is irrelevant. If it had been a harpsichordist who could not accurately render the works of Handel, a fidler playing Gypsy dances who could not keep in tune, or anything else, the issue is the same. Music is about melody and harmony. Styles and tastes vary over time and between people, but music remains the same in essence. Talent should be recognised and rewarded. Lack of it should not.