Once again, dear readers, I find myself at
loss for a word. (Billy Connolly: “I know at least... oh my God, at least 127
words. And I still prefer ‘Fuck’.”) Once again, too, I suspect our German
cousins have some coinage for what I’m trying to express. Anyway, what I’m
talking about is things which I believe to be good, virtuous, almost, worthy of
respect and study, but which I do not myself like. Two things in particular
fall into this category for me.
The first is baseball. Now, I grant you, this
does not impinge on me or my life very much. Certainly not to the extent which
football (which I loathe) does. It is true that my father, stepmother and
brother are avid fans and passionate members of the Red Sox Nation, but they
are polite enough not to inflict very much of that passion on me.
Why do I say baseball is good and worthy of
respect? Partly it’s the historian in me. Baseball fans take their sport very
seriously, and obsess over its minutiae and its statistics. They will tell you
earnestly about the “stolen” World Series of 1919, and that’s before we even
get on to the Curse of the Babe. Now, this does not especially interest me, but
I doff my cap in its direction. I like that people bow at the altar of the past
and, in their own way, strive to accumulate knowledge the better to understand
the sport they love. I am much the same about motor racing, so I can read
across to stick-and-ball, and I respect baseball fans for that.
I have, I should say, been to one single and
solitary ball game in my life. Back in the early 2000s, on one of my first
trips to Boston, I was persuaded to go to Fenway Park to watch the Sox play the
Toronto Blue Jays. As a life experience, I rather enjoyed it: the roar of the
home crowd, the relatively tight confines of the ball park, the beer, the dogs.
I was one of very few who – purely in the interests of impartiality – sang the
words to both national anthems. (I think O
Canada is marginally better.) So I was glad I went. However, I have
declined subsequent invitations, even when the rest of the family are going.
They go to Fenway, and I sit in the bar with a book. It suits everyone.
The second object of my – well, ‘affection’
is the wrong word; shall we say ‘admiration’? – is the blues. When I was at
school, my friend Jon Burley was a huge fan of blues music, and I used to
spectate as he pored over the CDs in the library. And, because I am by nature
curious, I listened to a few myself, to see what all the fuss was about.
Like baseball, blues is big on history.
Robert Johnson selling his soul to the Devil at the crossroads, the birth of
the genre in the Mississippi Delta, the sharecropper origins of its first
exponents. All of that I find quite interesting, and, as with baseball, I
admire the fact that people are interested in it. I wrote last week of my
hatred for intellectual incuriosity, so it is only right that I salute those
who want to know where the music they love comes from. I am much the same with
country music (I am currently watching “Country at the BBC”): the roots of the
genre are fascinating, and I have just drunk in a documentary about the Carter
Family and the Appalachian origins of what we know as country music today.
There’s only one problem. I don’t much like
the blues. I know it’s tremendously influential, and I’m sure there’s quite a
lot of music I adore which couldn’t have existed without BB King or Lead Belly.
Fleetwood Mac came out of the British blues explosion of the 1960s, for
example, as did Led Zeppelin, and that’s before we even consider Clapton. But it
simply doesn’t speak to me. It’s not that I think it’s bad music. There is a lot of bad music around, and I don’t think
the best of the blues falls into that category (though I’m sure there is bad
blues).
Unlike baseball, I’ve never been to a live
blues concert. Maybe I should. I love live music, even if it’s not my usual
genre, and perhaps that would convert me. Somehow, though, I suspect not. I’d
probably enjoy it more than I would expect, but I don’t think it would be
Damascene.
What does all of this say about me? (Because
blogs, dear readers, are nothing if not self-referential.) I suppose – and this
goes back to my earlier entry about lack of curiosity – I like people who are
enthused by things, even if they are things I do not like. (This does not apply
to football, a boorish, thuggish pastime which brings out the worst in people.)
More than that, I like people who appreciate the history of their enthusiasms.
The past makes the present what it is. To use the example of my own obsession,
if you’re a Formula 1 fan but don’t know about Fangio and Clark and Fittipaldi
and Prost and Senna, you’re missing the point, and missing out on so much. One
of the reasons I warm to Sebastian Vettel is that he understands the past,
values what has gone before.
No comments:
Post a Comment