Monday, November 09, 2009
Dear viewers of the X-Factor,
Many of you apparently came to a realisation only last night, after Simon Cowell elected not to eliminate the double act of John and Edward from the competition after weeks of deriding their performances and stating publically that their victory in this competition would destoy the programme and would encourage him to leave the country. You have apparently developed a sense of cynicism for the first time (a cynicism oddly absent in the way you have previously embraced this popularity competition mascarading as a talent contest) that Cowell only did this because he calculated he can make more money from the circus that surrounds those two boys than Lucie Jones. Indeed, it could be argued that by taking such a public stance against the two, he has himself increased their value as a commodity.
I am inclined to agree with this assessment. Please, however, do not confuse this with sympathy for your outrage.
Most of you will continue to watch this meaningless exercise. You like to claim that the programme discovers the some of the most exceptional singers in the country. That it does that on a yearly basis makes me inclined to think that there is a plentiful supply of such individuals who can be easily slotted into the producers desired show format. Most can hold a tune, but I've yet to see why we need one more of them, and why we need to spend so much time finding such a minor contribution to popular music. Once again, we as a nation and a culture have confused being good at something with being exceptional. This is how mediocrity wins.
Here's what you should do. If you care about music so much, leave the house and go and support real musicians. Go to local gigs. Buy their CDs. Tell your friends. That all this time and energy spent on one sideshow act in the name of finding the country's next top musician is troubling at best (and downright perverted at worst). We live in an age of vast informational resources. We could each discover ten great acts in one-twentieth of the time it takes for this show to runs its course. So, stop moaning, and consider doing that instead.
Of course, if you don't care about music, may I recommend you watch the X-Factor. It is the programme for you.
Yours sincerely,
Craig
Many of you apparently came to a realisation only last night, after Simon Cowell elected not to eliminate the double act of John and Edward from the competition after weeks of deriding their performances and stating publically that their victory in this competition would destoy the programme and would encourage him to leave the country. You have apparently developed a sense of cynicism for the first time (a cynicism oddly absent in the way you have previously embraced this popularity competition mascarading as a talent contest) that Cowell only did this because he calculated he can make more money from the circus that surrounds those two boys than Lucie Jones. Indeed, it could be argued that by taking such a public stance against the two, he has himself increased their value as a commodity.
I am inclined to agree with this assessment. Please, however, do not confuse this with sympathy for your outrage.
Most of you will continue to watch this meaningless exercise. You like to claim that the programme discovers the some of the most exceptional singers in the country. That it does that on a yearly basis makes me inclined to think that there is a plentiful supply of such individuals who can be easily slotted into the producers desired show format. Most can hold a tune, but I've yet to see why we need one more of them, and why we need to spend so much time finding such a minor contribution to popular music. Once again, we as a nation and a culture have confused being good at something with being exceptional. This is how mediocrity wins.
Here's what you should do. If you care about music so much, leave the house and go and support real musicians. Go to local gigs. Buy their CDs. Tell your friends. That all this time and energy spent on one sideshow act in the name of finding the country's next top musician is troubling at best (and downright perverted at worst). We live in an age of vast informational resources. We could each discover ten great acts in one-twentieth of the time it takes for this show to runs its course. So, stop moaning, and consider doing that instead.
Of course, if you don't care about music, may I recommend you watch the X-Factor. It is the programme for you.
Yours sincerely,
Craig
Labels: the people who are wrong
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Going to a wrestling show tonight. Dragon Gate is one of the larger Japanese indy promotions, and to be honest one of my least favourite. That said, live puro ten minutes down the road from me (its at the Regal on Cowley Road) is rare - this, to my knowledge is the only UK show any Japanese promotion is putting on this year, so its proximity is too much of a reason not to go.
It should be fun at least - the Dragon Gate guys may be weak at putting together coherent wrestling matches, but they can fly around all over the place which should be a spectacle. The atmosphere will probably be fairly contagious too - UK fans, wrestling starved as we are, are usually great, providing they don't try to imitate the more annoying tendencies of US indy fans (chants of "this is awesome" after two minutes of action). More on this, later.
It should be fun at least - the Dragon Gate guys may be weak at putting together coherent wrestling matches, but they can fly around all over the place which should be a spectacle. The atmosphere will probably be fairly contagious too - UK fans, wrestling starved as we are, are usually great, providing they don't try to imitate the more annoying tendencies of US indy fans (chants of "this is awesome" after two minutes of action). More on this, later.
Labels: the professional wrestling
Friday, October 30, 2009
What's the point of having scientific advisors if you only listen to them if they confirm your priors or support your political position? If you're never going to change anything, even if a respected scientist says you're basing your position on nonsense, why even bother having an advisory body?
I'm so tired of this empty debate about drugs. All governments ever say they are going to do is "fight against illegal substances", ignoring the fact that they are only illegal because they called them that. What we're trying to say is that there's hypocrisy in the distinction between those currently legal and those currently illegal, despite many of them being less personally and socially harmful (by a number of different measures) than nicotine and alcohol. If you can't get past an argument more sophisticated than "they're illegal because they're illegal", you're not the right people for this job.
I'm so tired of this empty debate about drugs. All governments ever say they are going to do is "fight against illegal substances", ignoring the fact that they are only illegal because they called them that. What we're trying to say is that there's hypocrisy in the distinction between those currently legal and those currently illegal, despite many of them being less personally and socially harmful (by a number of different measures) than nicotine and alcohol. If you can't get past an argument more sophisticated than "they're illegal because they're illegal", you're not the right people for this job.
Labels: the news, the politics
Friday, October 23, 2009
So we're are three nights into the show, and it's going well. I would say, although its open to debate, that they have been improving each night, certainly from a personal level, and also with things like the degree of mind-meld and reincorporation. There were several times last night when I realised we were all thinking the same things, which makes driving an improvised storyline that much easier, and look that much better. That said, last night was also more silly and over-the-top than previous nights, which means that perhaps, whilst enjoyable for ourselves and entertaining for the audience, may not have been the best (or deepest) improv.
John and Sarah Lloyd attended last night, and said they thought it was so well improvised, it was possible to forget that it wasn't scripted. This is a huge compliment, although also creates problems, which we may need to deal with. Reviews have been good, generally. Aside from a savaging in the Oxford Student, based on what was admittedly not the greatest press preview, the Cherwell review was good (although the star rating reflected the perceived likelihood that a improvised show varies in quality) and OTR put up two here. It's a shame no-one was in to review Wednesday or Thursday's show, as they were our best yet.
Anyway, tickets are mostly sold, though some remain, especially for Saturday. If you haven't had chance yet, do come: 9.30pm, tonight and tomorrow, Burton Taylor Studio Theatre.
John and Sarah Lloyd attended last night, and said they thought it was so well improvised, it was possible to forget that it wasn't scripted. This is a huge compliment, although also creates problems, which we may need to deal with. Reviews have been good, generally. Aside from a savaging in the Oxford Student, based on what was admittedly not the greatest press preview, the Cherwell review was good (although the star rating reflected the perceived likelihood that a improvised show varies in quality) and OTR put up two here. It's a shame no-one was in to review Wednesday or Thursday's show, as they were our best yet.
Anyway, tickets are mostly sold, though some remain, especially for Saturday. If you haven't had chance yet, do come: 9.30pm, tonight and tomorrow, Burton Taylor Studio Theatre.
Labels: the laughing at me
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Excitingly, I have had a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Public Economics. This would be my first one. Go me. The world will now have to brace itself for the revolutionary impact of "Quasi-hyperbolic discounting and retirement: a comment" (forthcoming).
Labels: the economics, things I'm pro
Friday, October 09, 2009
I'm as Pro-bama as the next guy, but seriously, what on Earth?
Edit: Actually, reading this is an impressive argument. My initial thoughts were based on the fact that its still early days. Maybe that misunderstands the purpose and nature of the prize.
Edit: Actually, reading this is an impressive argument. My initial thoughts were based on the fact that its still early days. Maybe that misunderstands the purpose and nature of the prize.
Labels: the news
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Sorry, haven't done this for a while. I meant to put up a Kitson review, and I probably still will. In the meantime, however:
Every morning, Cath puts on GMTV as she's getting ready. I have reached the point now where if I meet Andrew Castle in the street, I'll probably injure him (although that would only give him something else to look outraged about the following morning). Every morning there's some massive injustice going on somewhere in the country, some Little Man's battle against evil business or ineffectual government where he (or one of his co-hosts) will attempt to impersonate a real journalist by asking what I assume they think are the tough questions, but are actually just populist jabs, usually without the slightest bit of research or knowledge apart from the talking points from the segment introduction.
About a month ago, they were doing a segment on teen binge drinking, with the angle being that marketing departments in drink companies aggressively target young people. Possibly true, and morally quite dubious, but that misses the point. A representative from the industry made the reasonable point that companies can only operate with the existing law, and that maximising profits for shareholders is actually a legal requirement. They also had on a girl who had become an alcoholic in her mid teens. This sort of reporting, where you take one person with a huge vested interest and a sympathetic backstory as a spokesperson or expert for a particular point of view is manipulation, pure and simple, both of the individual, and of the watching audience, and lacks the intellectual rigour these issues deserve. Think Paul Betts everytime there's a drug tragedy story.
That said, she impressively and bravely argued that it was much more her personal choices than advertising that was her downfall, despite Castle's attempts to place sentences like 'wouldn't have happened if these companies didn't target children' in her mouth, nearly destroying the whole angle of the segment (it would have been destroyed if the host paid any attention to the input of their guests, rather than continuing with whatever they were going to say anyway).
This morning was a familiar one - the idea that electricity and gas companies pass on increases in energy costs much more than they pass on decreases in energy costs. The whole segment was lunatic on many levels. There was an 'expert' claiming that the problem was that the Big Six energy firms had been allowed to get too big, and competition was weak. There are SIX firms. That's four or five more firms than are active in most other European countries. The UK is the country furtherest along with the sort of market liberalisation the European Commision wants. How can any of them get too big? They have to share a market six ways.
The report also pointed out that companies tend to buy fuel a long way in advance, which is true, and for good reasons to do with reducing risk (which, ultimately, lowers cost). This, then, is the reason why changes in energy prices aren't always seen on bills. That is the end of the argument, because the initial question is the wrong one. Obviously, this point of logic ignored. They went on to ask if government should step in, as Ofgem wasn't doing enough, without the slightest discussion of why regulators are made independent from government in the first place.
The piece actually finished with a long statement from Ofgem stating that this issue had been investigated extensively last year, and no evidence was found that this perception (which has been propogated by media outlets like GMTV). I haven't read this report, but I do know that regulators rarely tend to side with energy companies on principle. I've worked on reports for regulators, and reviewed regulatory proceedings, and the amount of times a regulator will reject the arguments of a regulated company far outweigh the times they concede the point. Clearly, however, this argument will continue until someone writes a better report. Your move, Ofgem.
Let me finish this by noting that I'm no champion for the benefits of unfettered free market capitalism and big business. I realised long ago that capitalism is the only sustainable economic system, because it best matches human nature, with all its innate self-interest. That is not to say that I think that just because these motivations are natural, they are the best we can do - and anyone who argues otherwise is grotesquely unambitious. I believe that one of the challenges of the modern left is to find ways which greater equality can be created within this system.
Big business and the free market can, at times, do this - lower costs of living are a benefit to all, but a particular benefit to the poorest. At other times, the necessary conditions for effective free markets (information, rationality and power) fail so much that goverment intervention is better. I believe that government should care about social welfare, and that taxes can be redistributive, but that not all taxes on the wealthy are effective in achieving this goal. There's no hard and fast rule. But we can surely all agree that these sorts of programmes, with their uninformed, analysis-free posturing helps nothing or nobody - the whole purpose of it is to generate public anger, which takes away energies that could probably be better spent on real issues.
Every morning, Cath puts on GMTV as she's getting ready. I have reached the point now where if I meet Andrew Castle in the street, I'll probably injure him (although that would only give him something else to look outraged about the following morning). Every morning there's some massive injustice going on somewhere in the country, some Little Man's battle against evil business or ineffectual government where he (or one of his co-hosts) will attempt to impersonate a real journalist by asking what I assume they think are the tough questions, but are actually just populist jabs, usually without the slightest bit of research or knowledge apart from the talking points from the segment introduction.
About a month ago, they were doing a segment on teen binge drinking, with the angle being that marketing departments in drink companies aggressively target young people. Possibly true, and morally quite dubious, but that misses the point. A representative from the industry made the reasonable point that companies can only operate with the existing law, and that maximising profits for shareholders is actually a legal requirement. They also had on a girl who had become an alcoholic in her mid teens. This sort of reporting, where you take one person with a huge vested interest and a sympathetic backstory as a spokesperson or expert for a particular point of view is manipulation, pure and simple, both of the individual, and of the watching audience, and lacks the intellectual rigour these issues deserve. Think Paul Betts everytime there's a drug tragedy story.
That said, she impressively and bravely argued that it was much more her personal choices than advertising that was her downfall, despite Castle's attempts to place sentences like 'wouldn't have happened if these companies didn't target children' in her mouth, nearly destroying the whole angle of the segment (it would have been destroyed if the host paid any attention to the input of their guests, rather than continuing with whatever they were going to say anyway).
This morning was a familiar one - the idea that electricity and gas companies pass on increases in energy costs much more than they pass on decreases in energy costs. The whole segment was lunatic on many levels. There was an 'expert' claiming that the problem was that the Big Six energy firms had been allowed to get too big, and competition was weak. There are SIX firms. That's four or five more firms than are active in most other European countries. The UK is the country furtherest along with the sort of market liberalisation the European Commision wants. How can any of them get too big? They have to share a market six ways.
The report also pointed out that companies tend to buy fuel a long way in advance, which is true, and for good reasons to do with reducing risk (which, ultimately, lowers cost). This, then, is the reason why changes in energy prices aren't always seen on bills. That is the end of the argument, because the initial question is the wrong one. Obviously, this point of logic ignored. They went on to ask if government should step in, as Ofgem wasn't doing enough, without the slightest discussion of why regulators are made independent from government in the first place.
The piece actually finished with a long statement from Ofgem stating that this issue had been investigated extensively last year, and no evidence was found that this perception (which has been propogated by media outlets like GMTV). I haven't read this report, but I do know that regulators rarely tend to side with energy companies on principle. I've worked on reports for regulators, and reviewed regulatory proceedings, and the amount of times a regulator will reject the arguments of a regulated company far outweigh the times they concede the point. Clearly, however, this argument will continue until someone writes a better report. Your move, Ofgem.
Let me finish this by noting that I'm no champion for the benefits of unfettered free market capitalism and big business. I realised long ago that capitalism is the only sustainable economic system, because it best matches human nature, with all its innate self-interest. That is not to say that I think that just because these motivations are natural, they are the best we can do - and anyone who argues otherwise is grotesquely unambitious. I believe that one of the challenges of the modern left is to find ways which greater equality can be created within this system.
Big business and the free market can, at times, do this - lower costs of living are a benefit to all, but a particular benefit to the poorest. At other times, the necessary conditions for effective free markets (information, rationality and power) fail so much that goverment intervention is better. I believe that government should care about social welfare, and that taxes can be redistributive, but that not all taxes on the wealthy are effective in achieving this goal. There's no hard and fast rule. But we can surely all agree that these sorts of programmes, with their uninformed, analysis-free posturing helps nothing or nobody - the whole purpose of it is to generate public anger, which takes away energies that could probably be better spent on real issues.
Labels: the economics, the news
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Seeing Kitson tonight at the Playhouse. First time. Glowing reviews to follow.
Labels: the comedians, the thoughts that are not unnecessarily long
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I've been enjoying Derren Brown's latest series. What I've enjoyed most is watching public reaction - and I'm convinced Derren is enjoying it as well.
After the lottery trick, the amount of time spent proving it was a trick was completely unprecedented. I can only assume that people feel the need to try to prove a magician is actually a magician, and not a wizard, because he's been so successful in the past at baffling people. His act often dresses up magic in the guise of being something deeper. He may certainly be better at controlling minds than other magicians (the Heist stunt, for instance, is no illusion) but he is still, at the end of the day, a magic act that use a wide variety of methods.
The anger at his explanation - I've seen people say they've written to advertising watchdogs because of false claims - was particularly amusing, especially if you really watch the show. The punchline of the show - after giving his obviously false mathematical explanation, and his even more absurd 'fix the draw' explanation that was designed to taunt the real cynics - was simply "I'll maintain that it was just a trick", a throwaway reminder that the idea is could be anything else is just ridiculous.
If anything, the reaction to the control the nation event was even better. Commenting on the Guardian's live coverage of the show, many people seemed keen to point out, in a tone that suggested they were in some way superior, that it had not worked for them. Quite frankly, anyone who tried it with that attitude was never going to experience anything else. It should be noted that there was a punchline at the end of this show as well - this time mentioning that all the tricks has nothing to do with subliminal messaging. Cath chatted the entire way through it, but I've got it on my DVR, so I'll give it another go later, and let you know how it goes. I deeply want it to work. I think that would be more interesting than standing up.
After the lottery trick, the amount of time spent proving it was a trick was completely unprecedented. I can only assume that people feel the need to try to prove a magician is actually a magician, and not a wizard, because he's been so successful in the past at baffling people. His act often dresses up magic in the guise of being something deeper. He may certainly be better at controlling minds than other magicians (the Heist stunt, for instance, is no illusion) but he is still, at the end of the day, a magic act that use a wide variety of methods.
The anger at his explanation - I've seen people say they've written to advertising watchdogs because of false claims - was particularly amusing, especially if you really watch the show. The punchline of the show - after giving his obviously false mathematical explanation, and his even more absurd 'fix the draw' explanation that was designed to taunt the real cynics - was simply "I'll maintain that it was just a trick", a throwaway reminder that the idea is could be anything else is just ridiculous.
If anything, the reaction to the control the nation event was even better. Commenting on the Guardian's live coverage of the show, many people seemed keen to point out, in a tone that suggested they were in some way superior, that it had not worked for them. Quite frankly, anyone who tried it with that attitude was never going to experience anything else. It should be noted that there was a punchline at the end of this show as well - this time mentioning that all the tricks has nothing to do with subliminal messaging. Cath chatted the entire way through it, but I've got it on my DVR, so I'll give it another go later, and let you know how it goes. I deeply want it to work. I think that would be more interesting than standing up.
Labels: the people who are wrong, things I'm pro
Friday, September 11, 2009
I've never really listened to my iPod using the shuffle facility - I prefer to listen to whole albums. That said, I recently decided that I'd try to listen to all 2496 songs on my iPod because sometimes I think I don't know all the music I own. There are so many times I listen to the first twenty minutes of an album on a journey, and as a result don't really.
Anyway, I also thought I keep an on-going log of my progress and any thoughts. We join things at track 144 - Anaal Nathrakh's 'Yellow King' from the 'Eschaton' album. An incredible album, very heavy, yet surprisingly accessible, with clean vocals and even guitar solos. It's the majestic black metal of Emperor mixed with the Midlands grindcore of Napalm Death, with soaring chorus breaking out dense walls of noise. This track is less so - its all pummelling drums, gurgled vocals, and a crushing bursts of guitar. It's very grim - but in a good way.
Track 151 - 'Red Tape Suckers' by Nasum, of their rarities disc Grind Finale. Two seconds long, consisting of the lyrics 'red tape suckers' and a single blast of noise. I love grind. Moving on.
Track 161 - Darkthrone - 'I En Hall Med Flesk Og Mjod' off of 'Transylvanian Hunger'. I can never distinguish tracks on that album without checking (the Norwegian doesn't help), because there all a lot like this - almost hypnotic, repetitive, not a trace of warmth anywhere in the music. Much better to listen to the whole thing than individual tracks for the proper necro black metal experience.
Anyway, I also thought I keep an on-going log of my progress and any thoughts. We join things at track 144 - Anaal Nathrakh's 'Yellow King' from the 'Eschaton' album. An incredible album, very heavy, yet surprisingly accessible, with clean vocals and even guitar solos. It's the majestic black metal of Emperor mixed with the Midlands grindcore of Napalm Death, with soaring chorus breaking out dense walls of noise. This track is less so - its all pummelling drums, gurgled vocals, and a crushing bursts of guitar. It's very grim - but in a good way.
Track 151 - 'Red Tape Suckers' by Nasum, of their rarities disc Grind Finale. Two seconds long, consisting of the lyrics 'red tape suckers' and a single blast of noise. I love grind. Moving on.
Track 161 - Darkthrone - 'I En Hall Med Flesk Og Mjod' off of 'Transylvanian Hunger'. I can never distinguish tracks on that album without checking (the Norwegian doesn't help), because there all a lot like this - almost hypnotic, repetitive, not a trace of warmth anywhere in the music. Much better to listen to the whole thing than individual tracks for the proper necro black metal experience.
Labels: the metal, the shuffle
Monday, September 07, 2009
I've been wanting to post this news for a while, but there have been delays in everything being official.
At the age of 25, I have a job. Specifically, a research fellowship at SKOPE, a research group in the Univeristy's Department of Education. They were clearly fooled by my succinct yet persuasive CV (Craig Holmes, 25, unemployed, talented economist, hero to millions of children). It's perfect really - lots of academic freedom for research (within their research programme), but also more security, the ability to publish more often and at a more noticeable level, and most importantly, an office with my name on it. And an employer - nothing makes you get out of bed and start your day like having an employer (Exceptions: fire, dreams about spiders, violent wife). I'm very pleased, is all.
If anyone knows anyone who does poster design quickly, send me a message. I need to send for an order by the end of the month at the latest.
At the age of 25, I have a job. Specifically, a research fellowship at SKOPE, a research group in the Univeristy's Department of Education. They were clearly fooled by my succinct yet persuasive CV (Craig Holmes, 25, unemployed, talented economist, hero to millions of children). It's perfect really - lots of academic freedom for research (within their research programme), but also more security, the ability to publish more often and at a more noticeable level, and most importantly, an office with my name on it. And an employer - nothing makes you get out of bed and start your day like having an employer (Exceptions: fire, dreams about spiders, violent wife). I'm very pleased, is all.
If anyone knows anyone who does poster design quickly, send me a message. I need to send for an order by the end of the month at the latest.
Labels: the economics, the living
Monday, August 31, 2009
Home from Edinburgh, having had a great week in Edinburgh.
Aside from performing in a few Imps shows whilst there (more on that later) we got to see around fifteen shows. Some were exceptional. Tim Key (this years main award winner) thoroughly deserved his accolades with his show, The Slutcracker, and his friend Tom Basden's show, Now That's What I Call Music-Based Comedy, was also great. They both have a similar style, delivering what could be described (simplistically) as intentionally bad poetry (Key) or songs (Basden) ("it's not intentional", says Key, "when I sit down to write a poem, I think 'Let's make this a good one'"). Basden is an excellent guitarist, I should also note. Their material is coupled with extensive use of multimedia and some props, making the show seem so much more than just stand-up. Key ends his show attempting to cross the room, aided by the audience, without touching the floor, paying off an earlier bit. Basden litters his shows with slides on his inventions (new boys names, girls names, maths) cartoons, and other ideas (a wordsearch comprising 100 letter Y's and the word 'Patio') set to music. I liked Key's show more, because of the quality of his performance, his delivery, his interactions with Fletch the techie, but Basden has perhaps been underated this year.
I also really like Laura Solon's first show in Edinburgh since winning the Perrier in 2005. She tells a story through a number of charachter (both male and female) which she voices. The story is both good in of itself and serves to allow a number of excellent standalone sketches (the French radio interview where the presenter and the French author debate whose culture is better, England or France is a highlight, as is her Welsh call-centre lady). The performance was energetic, her delivery impeccable and she seemed just, for want of a better word, lovely.
Rounding off my picks (bearing in mind I'm waiting to see Daniel Kitson and Stewart Lee on their post Fringe tours) was Simon Munnery's 2009 AGM. For our ticket, we got an hour and a quarter in the venue, and a further hour in the pub after as he finished going through all the submitted motions, improvising responses leading into more established routines. It's incredible how much matertial he has to draw on, and style-wise, there's no-one like him ("I went swimming in the river: widths, mainly").
I saw a lot of sketch shows - the Bristol Revunions and Delete the BanJaX were really fun, especially the latter. They seemed liked good friends whose palable delight at performing together was infectious, and where bits fell apart due to exhaustion and lost voices at the end of the run, their good natured mocking of each other was pitched exactly right. One of the guys, Dan, was particularly difficult to stop watching, and his enormous personality was obvious in all his characters (both human and horse). I want to do shows with them.
The Durham Revue were disappointing - I've often enjoyed them more than their Oxford or Cambridge counterparts. Cath and I left feeling quite bored by the end, as the show ran out of ideas about halfway through. I enjoyed the Penny Dreadfuls and Pappy's Fun Club, although given the disputes over the latter between Imps, I've had quite enough of discussing its merits and shortcomings. Rich Hall was quite a letdown - it was a bit meandering, and while he's great at dealing with the unplanned bits with the audience, little of his material was as stellar as I've seen in the past.
There's more, but instead, let's talk about the Imps. I did three shows, and to be brutally honest, I didn't enjoy myself a huge amount. Part of this was being a little out-of-practice, and the problems with joining a group of people who have their own momentum. I also didn't particularly like the set lists - I find improvised musicals tedious and I don't have much more love for Shakespeare scenes either. I find them restrictive with their conventions and often too long and convoluted. I'm also not convinced the audience don't share my assessment, for all our own bluster. Quite frankly, I like short form with all its silliness and energy and gimmicks and short scenes which allow quick ideas and short bursts of insanity, and I like long form for the ability to develop ideas and characters slowly and build up layers of humour and bring back themes. Where the group currently is sits between these two, but without the positives of either.
Aside from performing in a few Imps shows whilst there (more on that later) we got to see around fifteen shows. Some were exceptional. Tim Key (this years main award winner) thoroughly deserved his accolades with his show, The Slutcracker, and his friend Tom Basden's show, Now That's What I Call Music-Based Comedy, was also great. They both have a similar style, delivering what could be described (simplistically) as intentionally bad poetry (Key) or songs (Basden) ("it's not intentional", says Key, "when I sit down to write a poem, I think 'Let's make this a good one'"). Basden is an excellent guitarist, I should also note. Their material is coupled with extensive use of multimedia and some props, making the show seem so much more than just stand-up. Key ends his show attempting to cross the room, aided by the audience, without touching the floor, paying off an earlier bit. Basden litters his shows with slides on his inventions (new boys names, girls names, maths) cartoons, and other ideas (a wordsearch comprising 100 letter Y's and the word 'Patio') set to music. I liked Key's show more, because of the quality of his performance, his delivery, his interactions with Fletch the techie, but Basden has perhaps been underated this year.
I also really like Laura Solon's first show in Edinburgh since winning the Perrier in 2005. She tells a story through a number of charachter (both male and female) which she voices. The story is both good in of itself and serves to allow a number of excellent standalone sketches (the French radio interview where the presenter and the French author debate whose culture is better, England or France is a highlight, as is her Welsh call-centre lady). The performance was energetic, her delivery impeccable and she seemed just, for want of a better word, lovely.
Rounding off my picks (bearing in mind I'm waiting to see Daniel Kitson and Stewart Lee on their post Fringe tours) was Simon Munnery's 2009 AGM. For our ticket, we got an hour and a quarter in the venue, and a further hour in the pub after as he finished going through all the submitted motions, improvising responses leading into more established routines. It's incredible how much matertial he has to draw on, and style-wise, there's no-one like him ("I went swimming in the river: widths, mainly").
I saw a lot of sketch shows - the Bristol Revunions and Delete the BanJaX were really fun, especially the latter. They seemed liked good friends whose palable delight at performing together was infectious, and where bits fell apart due to exhaustion and lost voices at the end of the run, their good natured mocking of each other was pitched exactly right. One of the guys, Dan, was particularly difficult to stop watching, and his enormous personality was obvious in all his characters (both human and horse). I want to do shows with them.
The Durham Revue were disappointing - I've often enjoyed them more than their Oxford or Cambridge counterparts. Cath and I left feeling quite bored by the end, as the show ran out of ideas about halfway through. I enjoyed the Penny Dreadfuls and Pappy's Fun Club, although given the disputes over the latter between Imps, I've had quite enough of discussing its merits and shortcomings. Rich Hall was quite a letdown - it was a bit meandering, and while he's great at dealing with the unplanned bits with the audience, little of his material was as stellar as I've seen in the past.
There's more, but instead, let's talk about the Imps. I did three shows, and to be brutally honest, I didn't enjoy myself a huge amount. Part of this was being a little out-of-practice, and the problems with joining a group of people who have their own momentum. I also didn't particularly like the set lists - I find improvised musicals tedious and I don't have much more love for Shakespeare scenes either. I find them restrictive with their conventions and often too long and convoluted. I'm also not convinced the audience don't share my assessment, for all our own bluster. Quite frankly, I like short form with all its silliness and energy and gimmicks and short scenes which allow quick ideas and short bursts of insanity, and I like long form for the ability to develop ideas and characters slowly and build up layers of humour and bring back themes. Where the group currently is sits between these two, but without the positives of either.
Labels: the comedians, the laughing at me, the laughing at others, the oxford imps
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Booom.
Barney Frank murked that shit.
Update: Colbert adds joy to already joyous event.
Barney Frank murked that shit.
Update: Colbert adds joy to already joyous event.
Labels: the laughing at others, the news, the people who are wrong, the politics, the thoughts that are not unnecessarily long, things I'm pro
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Loading up the BBC News website is always more entertaining when the side bar tells you that science proves zombies could annihilate humans.
In such an event, says science, "only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures." (I think it's the word 'fictional' in the last sentence that makes it comedic art). Because, science reminds us, "it's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble." (I would personally have added the word 'fictional' prior to the word 'trouble', but then I am known for overkill)
Of course, science may not have quite got the model correct - it failed to recognise that the alternative assumption about "zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever." So stop your (fictional) panicing right now.
Man, I love it when other people are funny for me.
In such an event, says science, "only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures." (I think it's the word 'fictional' in the last sentence that makes it comedic art). Because, science reminds us, "it's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble." (I would personally have added the word 'fictional' prior to the word 'trouble', but then I am known for overkill)
Of course, science may not have quite got the model correct - it failed to recognise that the alternative assumption about "zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever." So stop your (fictional) panicing right now.
Man, I love it when other people are funny for me.
Labels: the laughing at others, the news, things I'm pro
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Stupidly, a week ago, I got caught going 36mph going down Banbury Road into Summertown. The letter came yesterday, but addressed to Cath because she's the named owner with the DVLA. And instead of taking the £60 fine and 3 points like a good wife, she's shopped me. Actually, she has filled in a form with my details, put it in an envelope and asked me to post it tomorrow, so technically, I'm shopping me.
Mainly I'm most embarassed by the fact that I got speeding just 6mph over the limit. What's the point of speeding by so little - you get there hardly any faster, but the penalty is the same as if I'd gone 50.
Speaking of speeding, Usain Bolt's new world record was just breathtaking. The record came down by 100ths of a second every few years for ages - he takes 0.11 off in one go. It's important not to go over the top though - listen to the commentator saying (approximately), "he thinks he can go 9.4, but that's his limit. I'm not sure, I think he could go whatever time he likes". One day he shall wake up and say, "I want to go 5". And it shall be done.
Mainly I'm most embarassed by the fact that I got speeding just 6mph over the limit. What's the point of speeding by so little - you get there hardly any faster, but the penalty is the same as if I'd gone 50.
Speaking of speeding, Usain Bolt's new world record was just breathtaking. The record came down by 100ths of a second every few years for ages - he takes 0.11 off in one go. It's important not to go over the top though - listen to the commentator saying (approximately), "he thinks he can go 9.4, but that's his limit. I'm not sure, I think he could go whatever time he likes". One day he shall wake up and say, "I want to go 5". And it shall be done.
Labels: sport?, the living
