Three Out Of Four

Ernest Hemingway famously wrote that in order for a boy to become a man, he had to complete four tasks.

• Plant a tree.
• Father a son.
• Fight a bull.
• Write a book.

The analogies for each is simple enough. To plant a tree is to give back to the earth which sustains us all. To father a son is to continue your name and your legacy. To write a book is to ensure that the world knows you were here on this planet. To fight a bull means to face death or an adversary. It's not important whether you win or lose, but simply to face something greater than yourself head-on.

Today, bullfighting was banned in the province of Catalonia in Spain. It's a sport that has been practiced there for centuries and it's a part of their culture. Naturally, there were messy scenes when it was introduced. I just finished watching a debate on the topic between an environmentalist and a former bullfighter. It was in watching it that I realised something. Something I hadn't, at first, realised.

Up to this point, I would have been ardently on the side of the bull. It's absolutely cruel to send a bull into a ring and fight a man for sport. But then, it dawned on me. A bull could very easily kill a man. They are naturally aggressive. I don't have the exact facts on it, but I'm sure it is down a basic genetic makeup of them. They are prone to aggression. A friend of mine, as a child, was travelling through a field and came across a bull. From the very second he was spotted, the bull charged him. Yes, I'm aware that they are a territorial animal and they have a 'fight/flight' reflex. But theirs is purely fight.

It's then that I considered the following. There is a perfectly good chance that the bull will gore and kill the matador. The bull, let's face it, is not a sentient being with a capacity for reason. These bulls are treated with the utmost respect and are cared for with precision up to this point. They are put in the ring and it's between the man and the bull. The bull has a better-than-good chance of winning. That's the very essence of all sport. You and your opponent. The terms of battle being you are evenly matched or not.

Consider the next time you have a steak or a burger. There's a better-than-average chance that the meat you're eating comes from a bull. It had to be killed and sliced to get there. You're enjoying the meat as it rolls around in your mouth with all its juicy textures.

The bull in the ring was killed and sliced in a similar fashion. Yes, it was poked and speared up to this. But isn't that the same for the bull that's reared in a farm? It's poked, speared and jockeyed into position. If you've ever seen 'No Country For Old Men', you'll know that the device Javier Bardem uses is actually for killing bulls. As far as I have been able to gather, the bull is beaten into a holding pen and then gets the pellet put through his head and drops him straight away. He's then taken away to be processed. There's no getting around it. Bulls have to be killed in order to be eaten.

Therefore, I find it a little hypocritical for non-vegetarians to be criticising bull-fighting. The method in which that steak is arriving on your plate doesn't matter to you. You're simply enjoying it. Would it truly bother you to know that it had tried to kill a man? Probably not. We ignore these factors. We don't care. It's a bull. It's an animal. It's the food chain.

Jedward - A Debate

About a week or so ago, Jedward released their album, "Planet Jedward". It is an album of note-for-note covers of various pop songs from the last ten years. There is no new take on any of the songs chosen. Take, for example, their cover of Blink 182's "All The Small Things". It is exactly the same song - no difference in melody or tempo - from the original. In fact, the vocal track by Blink 182 could be removed and replaced by Jedward's. This leads me to ask the following question -

Why do it if you're not adding anything new to it?

It seems that Jedward are treated something between a novelty act and a children's favourite. They are, to use an acutely Irish expression, "harmless". This isn't the case, I think. How can they be considered as musicians? There is nothing original about what they do. They've stated on numerous occasions that they can't sing very well. In fact, they see it almost like a badge of honour. They are entertainers. That's something entirely different. An entertainer is someone who amuses you. A musician is someone who composes or performs music. Jedward have not done this. They have performed other people's music. Well, I say performed - they've replaced the original artist's vocals with their own.

Jedward are never going to win an Ivor Novello award. They will never be nominated for the Mercury Prize. They probably know that themselves. But the fact that their popularity and chart sales are taking from other musicians who are original, who are trying to do something different is where I get flummoxed. Now, I'll bet my next week's wages that this time two years from now, Jedward will most likely be playing in your local GAA bar. But who's to say that there aren't hundreds of acts like them coming down the line? When will the public draw the line and say enough?

Again, I reiterate that Jedward will never be taken seriously. And thus, their album shouldn't be taken seriously. My argument is that this shouldn't be the start of a trend. Say what you want about any of the other X-Factor people - they were, at the very least, original enough to put their own spin on certain songs. Or try their own. They may have all failed miserably. And that's a good thing. And Jedward, too, will fail miserably. But, the fact they're getting airplay / recognition / encouragement is what is truly frightening. Mediocrity is being encouraged. Originality is being discouraged. It's meant to be the other way around.