I love Wikipedia:
"The world record for most aces in a match is held by John Isner, with 93 aces (although game still ongoing) in a first round match against Nicolas Mahut at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships on June 23, 2010 (Mahut holds second place with 80 in the same match)."
Four minutes later:
"The world record for most aces in a match is held by John Isner, with 93 aces (although game still ongoing) in a first round match against Nicolas Mahut at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships on June 23, 2010 (Mahut holds second place with 82 in the same match)."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
News coverage of important and complicated economic developments is often very helpful, but sometimes it leaves more questions that it answers. I was trying to get to grips with the Budget's implications for welfare this morning, but the few headline measures don't really mean anything if you don't understand how tax credits work. So this morning I spent a few minutes getting to understand the system and a few more minutes trying to model the reforms.
There are two main sorts of tax credits in the UK: Working Tax Credits, paid to those in work but on low incomes, and Child Tax Credits, paid to those with children. The two credits replaced the old Working Families Tax Credits, which basically did the same but in one go.
There is a maximum value for each component of each credit, which is reduced as your income increases. There is what is called the first threshold (presently, £6420), where earning below this means you get the maximum. At present, tax credits are taken away at a rate 39p for each pound earnt over that threshold. They are technically ordered as well, so that the first credits to be removed are working tax credits (which have a basic component, a component for being a lone parent or a couple, and a component for working over 30 hours a week), then childcare, then the variable components of Child Tax Credits (children, baby, disability) except for the family component (which is the basic fixed element). The family component remains at £545 until the second threshold, £50,000, and then removed at a rate of 6.7p for every pound earned after that.
OK so far? The key changes in yesterday's budget are that the rate of removal is being changed to 41p for each pound for all credits (including the family component of the Child Tax Credit) and that the second threshold is being reduced to £40,000 next year. The one change that hasn't really been picked up on is that the second threshold for the family componet will be scrapped in 2012-13, so the family component will be removed immediately after all other components are - I'll show an example in a minute, but it basically hits everyone earning from about £23000 to £40,000. The baby component is being withdrawn.
At the same time, the children component of the Child Tax credit is being increased by £150 per year (in real terms) and another £60 the following year. Currently, this component is £2300 per child. This shifts the benefits from tax credits in favour of the lowest earners. Added to this, the tax allowance rose by £1000. Anyone earning between the current level and the new level will now pay no tax, and anyone earning above it will pay about £200 less tax each year. Those who have been taken out of tax will gain between 20p (for the person earning £1 more than the old threshold) and £199.80 (for the person earning £1 less than the new threshold).
Ignoring the income tax issue for the moment, I wanted to figure out who is better or worse off from the tax credit changes, so I put all of this into a model and looked at changes for benefits for incomes ranging from £1000 per year to £70,000 per year. I just focused on families (single parent or otherwise) with children (not babies and not disabled), so they receive a working tax credit - maximum of £3810 if they earn below £9,000, £4,600 if they earn over that, because at that point you would expect the person works 30+ hours in a week and receives an extra £790 - a child tax credit (maximum of £2300 per child in 2010, £2450 in 2011 and £2510 in 2012) and the family component (maximum of £545). I ignored childcare credits and child benefit for simplicity and kept all other benefits and the first threshold constant.
If you have one child, you are better off in both years if you earn less than £13,000 per year, by up to £210. This is important for government aims about poverty - the benchmark threshold for poverty in the UK is around £13,000 (about 60% of median income). So any claims that this Budget do not hurt the poorest stand up to some scrutiny here.
Up to £17000, you gain in 2012-13, but lose less in 2011-12. Above that, the losses this year from the steeper withdrawl tend to outweigh the gains the following year from the higher children component. The total net losses are between £0 and £120, depending on income.
Families earning between £24,000 and £40,000 are not affected this year, as they only received the family component. Above £41,000, the family component disappears, so familes between £41,000 and £50,000 lose all or most of their current credits this year. Next year, families earning between £24,000 and £41,000 will lose the family component due to the scrapping of the second threshold. This is why it is surprising this reform hasn't been picked up on - it will affect a lot of people to the tune of £550 per year. At the same time, it's not surprising how little it has been mentioned, because it's a bit complicated to get at.
For example, if you have two children, the patterns are roughly the same, but the exact thresholds change, and the headline "Families to lose £550 per year if they earn a certain amount per year" wouldn't work well. In this case, it is families between £31,000 and £40,000 that will lose the family component of their tax credit in 2012-13.
One last thing is the income disregard change from £25,000 to £5000. This, unlike what I thought after my first reading, is not a threshold, but a way of dealing with unexpected changes in income. So you earn £12,000 the previous year and are given the appropriate tax credit payment for the coming year. At the end of the year you earn £14,000. The income disregard means you haven't got to pay any credit back if your income change is small enough. "Small enough" used to mean £25,000 a year, and will now mean £5,000 per year. A tightening of the belt, for sure, but not one anywhere near as scary as the magnitude of the numbers (a drop of 80%), once you understand what it is. And now you do too.
Anway, that's all the numbers. The welfare state is a topic which raises strong emotions, often at the expense of facts. I would want to do nothing about the emotions, but hopefully this will do something for the facts.
By the way, our tax and benefit system hurts my head.
UPDATE: Some attention now being paid to the middle income families issue.
There are two main sorts of tax credits in the UK: Working Tax Credits, paid to those in work but on low incomes, and Child Tax Credits, paid to those with children. The two credits replaced the old Working Families Tax Credits, which basically did the same but in one go.
There is a maximum value for each component of each credit, which is reduced as your income increases. There is what is called the first threshold (presently, £6420), where earning below this means you get the maximum. At present, tax credits are taken away at a rate 39p for each pound earnt over that threshold. They are technically ordered as well, so that the first credits to be removed are working tax credits (which have a basic component, a component for being a lone parent or a couple, and a component for working over 30 hours a week), then childcare, then the variable components of Child Tax Credits (children, baby, disability) except for the family component (which is the basic fixed element). The family component remains at £545 until the second threshold, £50,000, and then removed at a rate of 6.7p for every pound earned after that.
OK so far? The key changes in yesterday's budget are that the rate of removal is being changed to 41p for each pound for all credits (including the family component of the Child Tax Credit) and that the second threshold is being reduced to £40,000 next year. The one change that hasn't really been picked up on is that the second threshold for the family componet will be scrapped in 2012-13, so the family component will be removed immediately after all other components are - I'll show an example in a minute, but it basically hits everyone earning from about £23000 to £40,000. The baby component is being withdrawn.
At the same time, the children component of the Child Tax credit is being increased by £150 per year (in real terms) and another £60 the following year. Currently, this component is £2300 per child. This shifts the benefits from tax credits in favour of the lowest earners. Added to this, the tax allowance rose by £1000. Anyone earning between the current level and the new level will now pay no tax, and anyone earning above it will pay about £200 less tax each year. Those who have been taken out of tax will gain between 20p (for the person earning £1 more than the old threshold) and £199.80 (for the person earning £1 less than the new threshold).
Ignoring the income tax issue for the moment, I wanted to figure out who is better or worse off from the tax credit changes, so I put all of this into a model and looked at changes for benefits for incomes ranging from £1000 per year to £70,000 per year. I just focused on families (single parent or otherwise) with children (not babies and not disabled), so they receive a working tax credit - maximum of £3810 if they earn below £9,000, £4,600 if they earn over that, because at that point you would expect the person works 30+ hours in a week and receives an extra £790 - a child tax credit (maximum of £2300 per child in 2010, £2450 in 2011 and £2510 in 2012) and the family component (maximum of £545). I ignored childcare credits and child benefit for simplicity and kept all other benefits and the first threshold constant.
If you have one child, you are better off in both years if you earn less than £13,000 per year, by up to £210. This is important for government aims about poverty - the benchmark threshold for poverty in the UK is around £13,000 (about 60% of median income). So any claims that this Budget do not hurt the poorest stand up to some scrutiny here.
Up to £17000, you gain in 2012-13, but lose less in 2011-12. Above that, the losses this year from the steeper withdrawl tend to outweigh the gains the following year from the higher children component. The total net losses are between £0 and £120, depending on income.
Families earning between £24,000 and £40,000 are not affected this year, as they only received the family component. Above £41,000, the family component disappears, so familes between £41,000 and £50,000 lose all or most of their current credits this year. Next year, families earning between £24,000 and £41,000 will lose the family component due to the scrapping of the second threshold. This is why it is surprising this reform hasn't been picked up on - it will affect a lot of people to the tune of £550 per year. At the same time, it's not surprising how little it has been mentioned, because it's a bit complicated to get at.
For example, if you have two children, the patterns are roughly the same, but the exact thresholds change, and the headline "Families to lose £550 per year if they earn a certain amount per year" wouldn't work well. In this case, it is families between £31,000 and £40,000 that will lose the family component of their tax credit in 2012-13.
One last thing is the income disregard change from £25,000 to £5000. This, unlike what I thought after my first reading, is not a threshold, but a way of dealing with unexpected changes in income. So you earn £12,000 the previous year and are given the appropriate tax credit payment for the coming year. At the end of the year you earn £14,000. The income disregard means you haven't got to pay any credit back if your income change is small enough. "Small enough" used to mean £25,000 a year, and will now mean £5,000 per year. A tightening of the belt, for sure, but not one anywhere near as scary as the magnitude of the numbers (a drop of 80%), once you understand what it is. And now you do too.
Anway, that's all the numbers. The welfare state is a topic which raises strong emotions, often at the expense of facts. I would want to do nothing about the emotions, but hopefully this will do something for the facts.
By the way, our tax and benefit system hurts my head.
UPDATE: Some attention now being paid to the middle income families issue.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
About a week ago, I went to watch American: The Bill Hicks Story, at the Phoenix. I am an enormous Bill Hicks fan. Obsessively so. I think I have all the bootlegged concerts on my computer, and a DVD of rariety camcorder shows as well as enough official CDs and DVDs that I have basically all his material available in one form or another (there's a lot of recorded stuff from 1990-91 which is repeated on several shows, which I ususally refer to as his Drugs and Drink and Cigarettes and Porn set). I also have about three books - two biographies and a book of transcripts and scripts and other writings. So that's the background I took into this documentary.
First of all, it's a beautiful film to look at. There's the usual audio history going on in the background, but what the directors have done is taken still photographs and created pseudo-animated sequences to support the narrative. It's odd at first, but very quickly you stop even noticing that the still faces aren't moving in their animated environment. Very clever.
Secondly, where has all this new footage come from? There are several camcorder recordings which must go back as far as the early 1980s that I have never seen before. If a DVD comes out, the producers had better put the whole sets on as extras. There's some bits (about his father) which I'd never heard before which were used to accompany the section on his early shows. I don't think they are quite as old as that (he looks a bit older than 16) but it's not far off. Some of these early clips also show later material in an earlier form - like the fantasy about the grotesque death of woman that broke his heart seeing him on the Tonight Show as she breathed her last.
The best thing about the film, however, is they way everything is brought back to the comedy. With enough reading, you'd already know about the drug stories and the depths of his alcohol abuse and his tragic early death from pancreatic cancer. While all of these are important parts of the story, no-one dwells on the more sensational details, but instead uses them in partnership with recordings to show how they motivated what he was doing on stage. There's clips to show him drinking excessively on stage, clips about his growing dislike of governments (including from Hicks and Kevin Booth's trip to Waco in 1993), clips contrasting his raptorous reception in the UK (the huge rock and roll entrance of the Revelations show at the Dominion theatre) adjacent to the small audiences ("staring blankly back at me like a dog that had been shown a card trick) of a backwater comedy club in the US South. I like this because it feels like the best use of the documentary medium, and gives fresh insight into a topic I (and many other fans) already know well. I mean, I can read and re-read an autobiography of his life but only in a film can I really see the effect on his work. Very much recommended, for disciples and neophytes alike.
First of all, it's a beautiful film to look at. There's the usual audio history going on in the background, but what the directors have done is taken still photographs and created pseudo-animated sequences to support the narrative. It's odd at first, but very quickly you stop even noticing that the still faces aren't moving in their animated environment. Very clever.
Secondly, where has all this new footage come from? There are several camcorder recordings which must go back as far as the early 1980s that I have never seen before. If a DVD comes out, the producers had better put the whole sets on as extras. There's some bits (about his father) which I'd never heard before which were used to accompany the section on his early shows. I don't think they are quite as old as that (he looks a bit older than 16) but it's not far off. Some of these early clips also show later material in an earlier form - like the fantasy about the grotesque death of woman that broke his heart seeing him on the Tonight Show as she breathed her last.
The best thing about the film, however, is they way everything is brought back to the comedy. With enough reading, you'd already know about the drug stories and the depths of his alcohol abuse and his tragic early death from pancreatic cancer. While all of these are important parts of the story, no-one dwells on the more sensational details, but instead uses them in partnership with recordings to show how they motivated what he was doing on stage. There's clips to show him drinking excessively on stage, clips about his growing dislike of governments (including from Hicks and Kevin Booth's trip to Waco in 1993), clips contrasting his raptorous reception in the UK (the huge rock and roll entrance of the Revelations show at the Dominion theatre) adjacent to the small audiences ("staring blankly back at me like a dog that had been shown a card trick) of a backwater comedy club in the US South. I like this because it feels like the best use of the documentary medium, and gives fresh insight into a topic I (and many other fans) already know well. I mean, I can read and re-read an autobiography of his life but only in a film can I really see the effect on his work. Very much recommended, for disciples and neophytes alike.
Labels:
movie films,
the laughing at others,
things I'm pro
Monday, June 21, 2010
What I have done today:
1. Check email - three minutes.
2. Discuss Christmas holiday arrangement with colleague - two minutes.
3. Try to come up with a catchy title for a presentation: three hours, seven minutes.
This is the hardest thing about academia (easiest thing about academia: the spa days). What I want is about six words that suggests that my paper is both thrilling, yet insightful; meticulously researched, but definitely with car chases. The first problem is that my paper is on the labour market in the UK over the last thirty years - what jobs are disappearing (middle jobs income, routine task based occupations), why they are disappearing (computerisation) and where people doing them end up (words to do with mobility). This is not prime material for a catchy pun (play on words). In desperation, I tried to think of a song lyric or expression that might be tangentially related to this and what I discovered is that all of them have been used. A lot.
First attempt: "Stuck in the middle?" - a reference to noted popular music song 'Stuck in the middle'. This yields about 7000 results in Google scholar, ranging from the predicable (political science papers on countries bordering Russia and West Europe, sociological studies of middle management) to the less predictable (an article in a journal called, intriguingly, Fire Engineering) . I also found a paper called, "Tax Neutrality to the Left, International Competitiveness to the Right, Stuck in the Middle with Subpart F" (Keith Engel, if you ever Google your own paper titles, and I currently assume that you definitely do: Holla).
Second attempt: "Dude, where's my" and then something. There are 300 papers which are called, "Dude, where's my" and then something. Dude, where's my phenotype? Dude, where's my paradigm? Dude, where's my corn (possible subtitle: where's my corn, dude?). Even, Dude, where's my Black Studies Department? This is an actual book, although it may also be a page on Yahoo Questions.
Increasingly desperate attempts three onwards: "The more things change, the more they stay the same" - 3000 hits on Google Scholar (Including 'The use of popular cliches in academic paper titles: the more things change, the more they stay the same'). Next, "Moving on up" - 1200 hits on Google Scholar ("Movin' on up" has 600 hits, which tells me that for every three academics who have heard the music of M:People, two thought they could have been better). Finally, "Where have all the flowers gone? (where flowers are workers in routine task-based occupations and similar)" - no hits on Google Scholar, several hits on keyboard with own head.
So, anyway, this is the net result of my morning's work. Two paper titles. Firstly: The route out of the routine: jobs, wages and mobility in a polarising labour market. I love the 'interesting title: tedious exposition' format for academic papers. I want to write a paper called 'Punch in the balls: a study of fruit drinks at formal dinner and dance events'. The second one is called: "Calling time on the hourglass economy". Oh, by the way, there's a thing called the hourglass economy hypothesis, and I'm disputing it's importance. This is why this is clever. Both are original. Most importantly, if either are ever Googled by an up-and-coming young academic looking for ideas for a title of a new paper they will now see a link to this post. And, if they continue reading, they will also see this:
THESE TITLES ARE TAKEN. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT USING THEM. THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE.
AND, YES, THAT ALSO APPLIES TO THE FRUIT DRINK ONE.
1. Check email - three minutes.
2. Discuss Christmas holiday arrangement with colleague - two minutes.
3. Try to come up with a catchy title for a presentation: three hours, seven minutes.
This is the hardest thing about academia (easiest thing about academia: the spa days). What I want is about six words that suggests that my paper is both thrilling, yet insightful; meticulously researched, but definitely with car chases. The first problem is that my paper is on the labour market in the UK over the last thirty years - what jobs are disappearing (middle jobs income, routine task based occupations), why they are disappearing (computerisation) and where people doing them end up (words to do with mobility). This is not prime material for a catchy pun (play on words). In desperation, I tried to think of a song lyric or expression that might be tangentially related to this and what I discovered is that all of them have been used. A lot.
First attempt: "Stuck in the middle?" - a reference to noted popular music song 'Stuck in the middle'. This yields about 7000 results in Google scholar, ranging from the predicable (political science papers on countries bordering Russia and West Europe, sociological studies of middle management) to the less predictable (an article in a journal called, intriguingly, Fire Engineering) . I also found a paper called, "Tax Neutrality to the Left, International Competitiveness to the Right, Stuck in the Middle with Subpart F" (Keith Engel, if you ever Google your own paper titles, and I currently assume that you definitely do: Holla).
Second attempt: "Dude, where's my" and then something. There are 300 papers which are called, "Dude, where's my" and then something. Dude, where's my phenotype? Dude, where's my paradigm? Dude, where's my corn (possible subtitle: where's my corn, dude?). Even, Dude, where's my Black Studies Department? This is an actual book, although it may also be a page on Yahoo Questions.
Increasingly desperate attempts three onwards: "The more things change, the more they stay the same" - 3000 hits on Google Scholar (Including 'The use of popular cliches in academic paper titles: the more things change, the more they stay the same'). Next, "Moving on up" - 1200 hits on Google Scholar ("Movin' on up" has 600 hits, which tells me that for every three academics who have heard the music of M:People, two thought they could have been better). Finally, "Where have all the flowers gone? (where flowers are workers in routine task-based occupations and similar)" - no hits on Google Scholar, several hits on keyboard with own head.
So, anyway, this is the net result of my morning's work. Two paper titles. Firstly: The route out of the routine: jobs, wages and mobility in a polarising labour market. I love the 'interesting title: tedious exposition' format for academic papers. I want to write a paper called 'Punch in the balls: a study of fruit drinks at formal dinner and dance events'. The second one is called: "Calling time on the hourglass economy". Oh, by the way, there's a thing called the hourglass economy hypothesis, and I'm disputing it's importance. This is why this is clever. Both are original. Most importantly, if either are ever Googled by an up-and-coming young academic looking for ideas for a title of a new paper they will now see a link to this post. And, if they continue reading, they will also see this:
THESE TITLES ARE TAKEN. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT USING THEM. THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE.
AND, YES, THAT ALSO APPLIES TO THE FRUIT DRINK ONE.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Sorry that this blog keeps changing in appearance. After six years, I wanted to try something new, and whilst I liked the last template, the code was rubbish and their were loads of problems (like no dates) and I don't know CSS so I have now switched to this one.
I also figured it was time for a name change. My use of Frogg as a internet pseudonym has diminished in recent years - I tend to go simply by Craig on wrestling or music forums or ScowlinMonk on latex fetish message boards - and I've always liked Adult, Content as a title for something (it was going to be my autobiography) so that is now the way it is.
I also figured it was time for a name change. My use of Frogg as a internet pseudonym has diminished in recent years - I tend to go simply by Craig on wrestling or music forums or ScowlinMonk on latex fetish message boards - and I've always liked Adult, Content as a title for something (it was going to be my autobiography) so that is now the way it is.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A story about last Monday that I want to remember.
There is a legend in the Imps, known by few. It's name is Lost in Alien. It is my all-time favourite improvised scene - loosely based on the films Lost In Translation and Alien, it remains the funniest thing I ever did on stage with Andy, featured the line "' I Will Survive' was your song?" and a thousand other bits of stupidity, and culminated in our first on-stage kiss. It was one of those moment where everything we said got a laugh and I felt like we were in complete control of the audience yet giddy with delight at the same time.
Last Monday was the last Wheatsheaf show I will do with Joe Morpurgo and Lucy Hamilton, two of the best improvisers I've ever had the privilege to perform with and (to the extent that anyone cares about it) two of the best human beings on the planet. I have had numerous great scenes with Lucy (including the only Imps scene I can remember that was done completely without words), she is so easy to be with on stage and I will miss her.
And now to Joe. To finish the the set off, we did a scene which could be entitled: Batman - by William Shakespeare. Everything started off normal enough - Batman (Joe) and Robin (Jim) talked in Elizabethan English to set the scene. At one point, Joe fires webs from his wrists - it later emerges that Batman has defeated everyone in Gotham City, and he had also eaten Spiderman. My cue to come in as the disembodied voice of Spiderman, from inside of Batman. The scene basically broke away from any semblance of a Shakespearean plot from then on, as the dysfunctional relationship between an increasingly irate Batman and an increasingly aggravating Spiderman played out.
Spiderman says "follow my lead", and Joe exits the stage, stomach first. Then: "What can you see, Batman?" "Nothing, it's dark". "Me too. We must be in the same place". Then: "Spiderman, I need your senses". "OK, I will use my sense of touch. It feels squishy. Are you somewhere squishy?" (Joe grabs his stomach in pain) "Use you sense of hearing. What can you hear?" "Digestion".
In the next scene Simon, as narrator came on, only for Joe and I to completely tear the Shakespearean structure to pieces and say goodbye to any plot for good, first correcting his failure to use sufficient plurals from offstage ("Can our hero..." "HEROES".), then making snide comments when he tries to please too hard ("Is it the Flies". "No, it's just the Fly. Keep up"), before finally breaking into a proper fourth-wall crushing argument between Batman and Spiderman ("Whose name is on this play?" "It should have been mine, until you ate me". "Well, did your film win any Oscars?"), until Joe tires of the whole thing and commits hari-kari to end it all - only to be met with "You missed me".
It was beautiful. Everything we said got a laugh. I felt in control yet giddy with delight, spurred on by occasionally glancing at all the other Imps on stage falling about with laughter. Joe was magnificent, spending most of the show on stage alone, talking to his stomach and slowly building up an impotent rage (all the while, I could corpse at will from off-stage).
Monday was one of the best shows I can remember in a long time. As a final act of the uniqueness that Joe brings, he got forty audience members on stage to join in the final song of musical, whilst reflecting out loud on three years of Oxford and love and life and everything. This is also the show that he ended Story Story Die with a rant on the Cherwell's predicable reviewing policy for any form of untraditional theatre. But above all of this, I am so glad that I'll remember my last Imps show with Joe for this: our Lost in Alien.
There is a legend in the Imps, known by few. It's name is Lost in Alien. It is my all-time favourite improvised scene - loosely based on the films Lost In Translation and Alien, it remains the funniest thing I ever did on stage with Andy, featured the line "' I Will Survive' was your song?" and a thousand other bits of stupidity, and culminated in our first on-stage kiss. It was one of those moment where everything we said got a laugh and I felt like we were in complete control of the audience yet giddy with delight at the same time.
Last Monday was the last Wheatsheaf show I will do with Joe Morpurgo and Lucy Hamilton, two of the best improvisers I've ever had the privilege to perform with and (to the extent that anyone cares about it) two of the best human beings on the planet. I have had numerous great scenes with Lucy (including the only Imps scene I can remember that was done completely without words), she is so easy to be with on stage and I will miss her.
And now to Joe. To finish the the set off, we did a scene which could be entitled: Batman - by William Shakespeare. Everything started off normal enough - Batman (Joe) and Robin (Jim) talked in Elizabethan English to set the scene. At one point, Joe fires webs from his wrists - it later emerges that Batman has defeated everyone in Gotham City, and he had also eaten Spiderman. My cue to come in as the disembodied voice of Spiderman, from inside of Batman. The scene basically broke away from any semblance of a Shakespearean plot from then on, as the dysfunctional relationship between an increasingly irate Batman and an increasingly aggravating Spiderman played out.
Spiderman says "follow my lead", and Joe exits the stage, stomach first. Then: "What can you see, Batman?" "Nothing, it's dark". "Me too. We must be in the same place". Then: "Spiderman, I need your senses". "OK, I will use my sense of touch. It feels squishy. Are you somewhere squishy?" (Joe grabs his stomach in pain) "Use you sense of hearing. What can you hear?" "Digestion".
In the next scene Simon, as narrator came on, only for Joe and I to completely tear the Shakespearean structure to pieces and say goodbye to any plot for good, first correcting his failure to use sufficient plurals from offstage ("Can our hero..." "HEROES".), then making snide comments when he tries to please too hard ("Is it the Flies". "No, it's just the Fly. Keep up"), before finally breaking into a proper fourth-wall crushing argument between Batman and Spiderman ("Whose name is on this play?" "It should have been mine, until you ate me". "Well, did your film win any Oscars?"), until Joe tires of the whole thing and commits hari-kari to end it all - only to be met with "You missed me".
It was beautiful. Everything we said got a laugh. I felt in control yet giddy with delight, spurred on by occasionally glancing at all the other Imps on stage falling about with laughter. Joe was magnificent, spending most of the show on stage alone, talking to his stomach and slowly building up an impotent rage (all the while, I could corpse at will from off-stage).
Monday was one of the best shows I can remember in a long time. As a final act of the uniqueness that Joe brings, he got forty audience members on stage to join in the final song of musical, whilst reflecting out loud on three years of Oxford and love and life and everything. This is also the show that he ended Story Story Die with a rant on the Cherwell's predicable reviewing policy for any form of untraditional theatre. But above all of this, I am so glad that I'll remember my last Imps show with Joe for this: our Lost in Alien.
I went to see Murder by Death last Wednesday, and, as before, they were fantastic. I love how they will play any song from any album - looking over set lists from previous shows, they mix up the new stuff, pick and choose the old stuff and play the entirety of In Bocco over the course of any three nights. That's a band there - there albums aren't three singles and a bunch of filler, but twelve immaculately crafted songs, each one telling a story and standing alone. The new stuff off Good Morning, Magpie sounds tremendous live - the title track is heart-wrenchingly sad, whilst Yes and Dark Streets Below rock along disguising their dark lyrics. And they played Those That Stayed as an encore, which was their classic encore song before, you know, they wrote so many songs they could mix it up. And the Big Sleep (now also played by me, every evening, to my wife's chagrin).
Truly, this band has spoiled rock music for me. As a guy who mostly listens to different forms of metal, there are few rock bands I really listen to, and none of them are anywhere near as good as Murder By Death.
By the way, there are hidden links to songs in this post, if you can find them.
Truly, this band has spoiled rock music for me. As a guy who mostly listens to different forms of metal, there are few rock bands I really listen to, and none of them are anywhere near as good as Murder By Death.
By the way, there are hidden links to songs in this post, if you can find them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)