Originally Posted by ElectraPalatine:
“I'm sorry, this is nonsense. It does not enhance a song to have untrained singers singing it. Speaking from experience, it takes a consummate professional to be able to sing something personal and painful because not being fully in control of your emotions gets in the way of the technique require to sing well. Not that this song requires much technique, nor did it have much technique given to it.
I am very pro. the military, but this is blatant pandering. There are plenty of choirs - probably hundreds - that are much better quality. I don't need a poorly executed song and mawkish sentiment to make to think the cause is worthy. In fact, I find blatant attempts at manipulating my sentiments to make me part with my cash something of a turn off.”
I take your point about mawkish sentimentality - I don't like my sentiments being manipulated either.
But I do think this is a bit different. Perhaps you needed to have seen the show to appreciate how isolated these military wives are, and how difficult it must be to have to hold the family together while worrying yourself sick about what might be happening to your husband. Watching the show, I got to see a bit of their lives and my respect for their stoicism grew over the course of the programmes.
I love the human voice - my classical CD collection is almost exclusively choral music and opera - and, yes, I'm a bit of a music snob (why listen to Katherine Jenkins when you can listen to Kiri te Kanawa?). But, for me, the reason I love this song and its execution so much is how
real it is - of course a choir like The Sixteen could deliver a technically flawless rendition, but what do any of them know about sleepless nights longing for the safe return of loved ones?
As far as Strictly is concerned, it also serves to remind me why I prefer Chelsee's dancing to Harry's - his is technically better, but she inhabits the dance and expresses it with real feeling. Yin and Yang, eh?