That's unusual, the guest "stars" normally bring their own musicians / backing track.

Even if it is the normal band with Bette Midler this week, why would it be any more difficult than backing anyone else? I wasn't aware her songs are more complex than any other standards. Maybe she's got a habit of coming in at the wrong place or switching keys half-way through!

BOD was brilliant - and was it the hippos that played the flutes?!

Oh dear you haven't a clue have you!!!! you really really should look up Dave Arch & Hayley before you make your silly comments......its not that your not entitled to your opinion its that you talk as if you know & you don't know .......In fact most of your Movies you watch , music you listen to, TV ads & programmes on TV have the works of Scd musicians & Dave Arch! please look things up so you can back what your saying first because you are so totally off course.....& Jamie Cullum is an amazing performer if you actually understand music, are you one of those wannabes from the old days who never quite made it ?

Here here !!!!S/Canadian

Doghouse sounds like u have a personal grudge????

This is not the case. They get there dance run weeks in advance. You often here the celebs saying they want to get to a perticular week so they can do a dance they like. And they start trying on their costumes 1 1/2 - 2 weeks before the dance is due. We have seen that when they have done "a week in the life of" VT.

I got the impression that the dancers learned and rehearsed to an edited version of the original song, and only on the Saturday did they get a run through with the band, at which point they could speed up/slow down or tweak the songs if they needed to.

I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong!

That is exactly how I understand the process, although I believe there can also be a bit of too-ing and fro-ing with the edited version of the song during the week if needed.

The key thing is that the band and singers are being asked to replicate an edited down version of the original recording as best they can live with near zero rehearsal time. The actual show performance is probably at most the fourth time they've played the pieces. If they were asked to make their own arrangement of the songs from scratch and had plenty of time to rehearse I am sure we'd hear something quite different and probably better. It is the singers who perhaps have the hardest job as they are being asked to replicate other performers performances, not truly sing as themselves. The fourth singer who hasn't been seen for a few weeks really seemed to struggle with this, but the other three seem pretty good to me.

Given the woeful standard of many of the guest music acts this series, I think it would be more interesting to pass that spot over to the band and let the singers take centre stage. Then we can see what they can really do.

Oh here you go again showing your ignorance and your limited knowledge of music.

If you think Jamie Cullum is amazing, there's nothing more to be said.

Such narrow horizons you have.

You went very quiet after you banged on about singers able to sing four octaves, (very few can) when I explained to you the reason why most popular songs used for ballroom over the last forty years by songwriters who are household names, used little more than an octave and a half. Well within the compass of the band singers.

I'd go back to Canada and find Nelson Eddy if I were you.

What I found amazing was the way Dave Arch was shown to write the arrangements on IT2. Well actually, all we saw was him writing in a few chord names on a sheet of M/S paper.
Why this was shown I don't know.
There are computer programmes (which I think he might use) which can be used to convert what's played on a piano to a score, which can then be printed off . It can also transpose the key of the music written, this is useful for the parts for the Bb and Eb instruments, which will be different to those written for the piano, thus reducing the time that would be necessary to write out all the different parts by hand.

Doghouse

If you decide to start a thread with a controversial statement you must expect to have your views challenged. When this happens you then get ratty with those who disagree with you.

Words like take, don't, it and dish come to mind.

There are many problems with this series of SCD. In my view the Band is not one of them.

Err..

Hang on Phil, I didn't start this thread. In fact I've defended the band, here are some extracts from earlier posts of mine on this thread.

"Ratings chasing" is ruining this series in my opinion.
The pinch-penny BBC only give them an hour or two to rehearse before the show.

The singers get criticised on occasions as they can't replicate a recorded performance by the original artist which was made in a studio and often digitally enhanced.
I often think they struggle to reach high notes as the music is arranged in a key not of their choice.

The situation with the band will always be a compromise, as I mentioned before with the penny-pinching attitude of the BBC. It's as if they are ashamed of it as they're hidden away at the back of the studio. The argument will be that they don't want to detract from the dancers.

The SCD band would not be criticised if they were allowed to play "proper" ballroom dance music and not be expected to try to replicate more contemporary songs to "engage" a younger audience who'd probably prefer to watch X-factor or go down the pub.

I've mentioned this before, she (Hayley) reminds me a bit of Jamie Cullum, who was described by someone on another board as;"a Stars in Their Eyes" performer.. "Tonight Matthew, I'm going to be...."
On that particular track she sounds like Stacey Kent.
But that's the problem if you're always trying to sing stuff on SCD like the "original artist."

But good luck to her, she gets a lot of stick on here for attempting to sing some stuff outside her comfort zone or range. But that's the fault of the producers, who I believe choose most of the tunes despite what the (contracted this year) pros say.


All my comments were made without reference to other contributors. I'm a firm believer in "separating post from poster."

But when as on this thread and on a previous one, one poster can't keep unnecessary personal remarks addressed to me out of their post, I'll respond in kind.

I try to be objective and just post my observations, I wish some could do the same.

So on this occasion I think you're a bit "out of order" here.