I'll tell you what fascinates me about things like the new
Nick Knowles album (yes, it's really a thing, it's
happening, and there's
nothing you can do about it), and it's not, perhaps surprisingly, the prospect of hearing that nice
gruff stubbly cheeky DIY chap off the telly reinterpreting some standards in his own inimitable style in the comfort of my own living room.
Here's the thing: record companies aren't mugs, still less charities, and they wouldn't offer Nick Knowles the chance to make a record just because he'd always fancied it; there'll be an eye on the bottom line and the calculation was presumably that there'd be enough people out there who'd go and buy such an offering that it'd be worthwhile expending the (presumably considerable) cost of production, studio time, photography, physical production of CDs etc. etc. But
who are the audience, and
why are they buying it? One of the things that makes us impeccably progressive liberal types objectively
better than you right-wing authoritarians is, after all, an urge to understand the motivations of others, to try and work out what drives people to do things, be it ISIS membership, paedophilia, incest or Morris dancing.
This
article about Bradley Walsh (whose debut album
Chasing Dreams went gold in 2016) confirms my suspicions; i.e. that it's mainly older people who disproportionately (i.e. compared with younger people) purchase physical CDs rather than streaming or downloading stuff off the internet. That's fine, but even then, you have to ask: what do you gain from having Bradley Walsh singing
Fly Me To The Moon, rather than, say,
Frank Sinatra? Even if you're not down with the whole Amazon thing and prefer actually going to a shop, Sinatra records are readily available, so why wouldn't you just pick up a compilation or something? Presumably not even the most wide-eyed fan of
The Chase would make the claim that Walsh's version is
better than Sinatra's, so why would you want it? I'm genuinely not having a pop here, I'm fascinated by how utterly opaque the thought process is to me. Take, I dunno, Victoria Coren as an example: it's
well-documented that I like her personally in all sorts of
inappropriate ways, and very much enjoy her BBC show
Only Connect for its fiendish quizzing qualities. But do I therefore say: I would very much relish the opportunity to hear her attempt some sexy, husky, yet endearingly half-arsed and amateurish covers of the songs of seminal female recording artistes like Carole King, Janis Ian and Nana Mouskouri? No, I do not, and I'm not sure why anyone would imagine that I would.
I should add that I'm not ill-disposed towards
cover versions per se, but these celebrity renditions (and the albums are generally almost exclusively cover versions) are not radical free-jazz disembowelments and reconstructions of classic tunes for kazoo orchestra,
Tuvan throat singer and Bolivian ear-flute; they're very close retreads of the originals, so as not to frighten the horses. Really what I'm experiencing here is the same bafflement I get when one of the
Britain's Got X-Factors throws up a Susan Boyle or a Paul Potts or similar who immediately knocks out an album of "standards" in time for Christmas, because, well, it's that nice lad off the telly, and well, he tries hard, doesn't he? And he's very devoted to his Nan, by all accounts, so that's nice.
But by jiminy it's a lucrative line of business for the record companies. I remember Ian McShane (post-
Lovejoy but pre-
Deadwood) knocking out an album called
From Both Sides Now in the early 1990s, including a cover of the Joni Mitchell song
of the same name. That seemed to me a bit of a quirky oddity at the time (though it may not have been, in fact everyone was probably at it;
Russ Abbott to name but one) but everyone's at it these days. The most cursory Googling reveals recent album releases from
Jason Manford,
Alexander Armstrong, the aforementioned Knowles and Walsh, that nice
Anton du Beke off the
Strictlys, and an album of solo piano material from impressionist
Alistair MacGowan. Sadly this one appears to have been played straight, rather than being a series of
hilarious comedy caricatures of the playing styles of Alfred Brendel, Sviatoslav Richter, Vladimir Horowitz and others.
Best of all is TV funny man and erstwhile
Eastenders star Shane Richie, who clearly takes his music
very seriously and would like you to know that his thing is
totally different from these half-arsed johnny-come-latelys (KNOOOOWWLES!!! *
shakes fist*) who just knock out an album in time for Christmas - although
his album is, as it happens, out in time for Christmas. I should point out that the new album's title echoes the title of
Trevor Nelson's Radio 2 show which, when I first heard it trailed, appeared to my ear to be called
Trevor Nelson's Cunt Rissole, which caused some brief confusion.
But anyway, what I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that I Just Don't Get It. Now there are plenty of wholly admirable mainstream artists with a wholly admirable body of self-composed and self-played material, but whom I nonetheless Just Don't Get in some fundamental way, Bruce Springsteen being one obvious example. But in general those who like Springsteen (and in my experience those who like Springsteen
REALLY like Springsteen) at least started with the music, that being primarily what he does. The idea that they would therefore be very interested in, let's say, seeing The Boss present his own daytime DIY-themed TV show (
Carpenters On The Edge Of Town or something) seems a bit odd, though I daresay there might be an audience for it.