pure seal tones

criticising the critic's critic

2012-01-21T00:15:00.003Z

I don’t know if Norman Lebrecht has some sort of personal feud going on with Anthony Tommasini, or if perhaps Lebrecht is just jealous that he wasn’t invited to teach the Oberlin Conservatory’s criticism course and is hence arbitrarily spouting bile at random targets. But either way, he has crossed a line with this post, in which he takes a completely unobjectionable piece of text by Tommasini and subjects it to a sort of incompetent pedantry, in an effort to make Tommasini look stupid. Needless to say, he not only fails, but he also comes across so spectacularly small-minded and dim that it's actually worth pointing out.

My original intention was to do to him what he did to Tommasini. But unfortunately it turns out that there are in fact no completely unobjectionable extracts anywhere on Norman Lebrecht’s blog, and so I’ve decided just to use the (hugely objectionable) Lebrecht post under discussion. Let’s join him in paragraph three.

Meanwhile, it’s business as usual on the Times.

Is “the Times” a boat? Or a day of the week? Does Lebrecht perhaps mean “on” as in “pertaining to”—is the business as usual about “the Times”? It is not clear what this sentence means. I am able to guess from context that “the Times” refers to the New York Times; however, I would have expected “Times” to be in italics, as it is in Lebrecht’s previous paragraph. And also, he presumably meant “at” rather than “on”. Business isn’t generally “on” newspapers, is it? It’s “at” them.

Reading this morning’s paper, I wondered what would happen if Anthony Tommasini review of a Lang Lang performance of the 2nd Bartok concerto was subjected to tutorial criticism.

Why are we told he was reading this morning’s paper? I don’t care about that. It isn’t directly relevant to the point he’s making. And why does he tell us he “wondered” this? Surely what actually happened was that he decided to do it. We are not living in a world of wonder, Mr. Lebrecht, but a stone cold world of fact. You actually have subjected Anthony Tommasini to the utter critical bilge you presumably imagined over breakfast, and now we all have to live with the consequences. Don’t hide behind the smokescreen of your imagination. This happened. No, I don’t like it either, but there’s nothing we can do about it now.

And he really goes proper wrong after that bit. You can't just leave pronouns out in English in cases such as this. “Anthony Tommasini review of a Lang Lang performance” is not a thing. “This Anthony Tommasini review of a Lang Lang performance” would have been fine, as would “Anthony Tommasini’s review of a Lang Lang performance”—but what Lebrecht has written is simply wrong. The hyperlink is also positioned in a really stupid place, which makes me suspect that he is crap at computers.

Further, what is “tutorial criticism”? Is it the criticism of tutorials? That’s what it reads like to me, but this makes no sense. Presumably he actually means “criticism given by a tutor”, which is a bit of a stretch. Not the worst error committed, but hardly good English.

It might look something like this (Times text in italics):

There is an image directly underneath this. To my eyes, the image looks nothing whatsoever like “what would happen if Anthony Tommasini review of a Lang Lang performance of the 2nd Bartok concerto was subjected to tutorial criticism” (though to be fair I do find it difficult to visualise syntactically invalid clauses).

I am also perturbed by Lebrecht’s use of the conditional. Why is he not certain that it looks something like what follows, given that what follows is clearly an attempt at such criticism? How are we meant to believe it if he doesn’t believe it himself?

The superstar pianist Lang Lang may shamelessly cultivate a flamboyant persona.
May, or does, cultivate?

My money’s on “may”. Let’s try it Lebrecht’s way though. “The superstar pianist Lang Lang does shamelessly cultivate a flamboyant persona.” No, that’s stupid. “May” is far better. Does Lebrecht not think that “may” is a valid word? Why does he ask this question?

Also, there’s an extra space at the start of the quotation, before “The”. If you’re going to subject someone’s writing to the minute level of detail Lebrecht attempts, you should probably get your formatting right.

And why ‘shamelessly’? Do we know he feels no shame?

No, we do not know this. That’s why “may” was a canny choice earlier on in the sentence.

Personally, I’ve found him very sensitive to his faults.

Using both “Personally” and “I’ve” draws particular attention to the author himself. The overall effect is of Lebrecht showing off that he has met Lang Lang. Perhaps he feels aggrieved that nobody has recently applauded him for this. To be fair, I sympathise entirely. I met Anthony Horowitz once and nobody has ever asked me for my autograph.

In any event, adverbs should be used sparingly, as a last resort.

It’s hard to know where to start with this one really. I mean, obviously too many adverbs is a bad thing, but to suggest that they are generally to be avoided is sort of mad. And I have no conception of what sort of linguistic “last resort” scenario Lebrecht is imagining here. When writing, does he choose every subsequent word systematically by part of speech? Does he go “Can I use a noun? No. Can I use a verb? No. Can I use an adjective? No. Can I use a preposition? No. Can I use an article? No and sometimes I forget to include them anyway. Can I use a pronoun? No. Can I use an interjection? No. Can I use a conjunction? No. OH WELL TIME FOR THE LAST RESORT, IT’LL HAVE TO BE AN ADVERB, OH NO!”? That’s not how I write. But then, I’ve never been to “tutorial criticism”.

Also, just a minor point, but “sparingly”—that’s, er, that’s...

oh yeah

IT’S AN ADVERB.

Lebrecht was only able to indicate how frequently one should use adverbs through the use of an adverb. Because as it turns out, adverbs are actually pretty useful. Much like any other part of speech. Parts of speech aren’t like Norman Lebrecht’s blogposts. They don’t just pop up out of nowhere to piss people off. They actually have functions.

See me after class.

This one’s a bit sad. He’s obviously forgotten that he wasn’t really invited to teach that criticism course.

And he has been criticized widely for exaggerated expressivity.
Widely – another adverb.

But maybe Tommasini had tried out “And he has been criticized camel for exaggerated expressivity” and was aesthetically dissatisfied with the result. Adverb was pretty much the right call at that particular point in the sentence.

And by whom?

Here Lebrecht invokes that other secret rule of the English language: the passive is cheating. If you use the passive, you’re wrong, because you haven’t told us who did the thing that was done. It’s not that the passive voice is the linguistically legitimate thing that we use to avoid having to say who the agent was. It’s actually that it’s cheating. Bet Alex Ross wouldn’t have taught you that.

What is meant by ‘exaggerated expressivity’ – when is expressivity, whatever that might be, considered excessive, and when tasteful? I have no idea what the sentence is trying to convey, other than a pejorative impression.

Grammatically, Lebrecht does alright here. Hats off to the guy. On the other hand, he still asks a ridiculously stupid question. I have never seen Lang Lang perform, and have read very little criticism of him, but even I know that he has a reputation for exaggerated expressivity. I also know what “exaggerated expressivity” means. I also know how to use a dictionary, and I tend to consult one if I come across words I don’t understand.

Still, no fair-minded person can deny that Mr. Lang has stupendous technique and keen musical instincts.
Still? What’s the time reference here?

There isn’t one. Tommasini has cunningly used “Still” in the sense of “besides”. Sometimes it means that.

And why the denial? either Lang Lang has the qualities specified or he hasn’t. Far too equivocal.

You have forgotten to capitalise “either” there. Or you’ve gone for some incredibly pretentious archaic effect and it hasn’t worked. The more serious problem with the above three sentences, though, is that none of them actually relate to the others in any way.

What Tommasini was doing was pointing out that although one can criticise Lang Lang for various reasons, he nonetheless has a basic degree of talent which has to be acknowledged. It was a reasonable point, eloquently expressed. Perhaps Lebrecht, in the face of such clear, comprehensible, logically-structured prose, simply exploded, spewing random sentences next to each other for a bit.

There was no showing off on Wednesday night at Avery Fisher Hall when Mr. Lang played Bartok’s Piano Concerto No. 2…
Baffled, again.

Who is baffled? Is it Norman Lebrecht? It’s Norman Lebrecht, isn’t it? Thought so. I wish I hadn’t had to guess though. You technically shouldn’t omit both the subject and the verb in sentences. Actually this is not the sort of thing I have a problem with in prose at all, but very clearly Lebrecht would have picked up on it if Tommasini had written this so I thought I’d criticise him for it anyway.

How can a soloist fail to show off? He’s there to be seen and heard. Check the picture.

Lebrecht is just being wilfully perverse by this point. Clearly there are more and less showy ways to perform a concerto. Tommasini was making the reasonable and consistent point that Lang Lang was not performing with the kind of showmanship that he is often assumed to rely on. Sometimes journalists try and make particular points about things.

Pianists consider it among the most technically demanding of all concertos. Mr. Lang gave a brilliant performance, not just glittering and incisive but joyous and smart.
I’m bothered by ‘pianists consider it’. It either is, or isn’t. State your case.

I’m bothered by your ludicrous insistence that everyone be incredibly forthright about their own views. Tommasini chose in the above extract not to offer his own view of how hard the Bartók concerto is, but to reference a commonly-held view among pianists. You know, people who are in a good position to judge that sort of thing. Pianists.

Mr. Lang, who can play anything easily, seemed intensely focused on this occasion. He performed reading from the score with a page turner to assist him: a sight his ardent fans rarely see.
‘Intensely focused’ – is that because he’s squinting at a score he ought to know by heart, or is some other intensity brought to bear? State which.

These are the only two options as to what Tommasini could possibly have meant by the phrase “intensely focused”. Is this because Norman Lebrecht is the sole arbiter of the English language, or because he is basically wrong? STATE WHICH

One could continue. Every sentence so far of this Times review contains a semantic, stylistic or logical flaw.

No it doesn’t. Every sentence of Lebrecht’s post does, but Tommasini’s is fine. Actually that’s not quite fair on Lebrecht. The sentence “One could continue” is semantically, stylistically and logically reasonable. There are, however, two spaces between “One” and “could”.

That’s almost 2,000 words. @FakeNLebrecht was punchier: "Come to my glass house and watch me cast the first stone at the kettle for being black."

a gratuitously aggressive title would be "occupy THIS"

2011-10-25T23:19:00.000+01:00

With apologies for furthering the argument... in response to this. I have two outstanding questions after reading it, even though it's probably the fairest account in support of the protests that i've read.

1. What is an occupation? Why do protesters occupy things? Seriously. I’m not sure any more. I thought the whole point of occupation was to cause inconvenience. Presumably, the Occupy Wall Street thing chose Wall Street rather than, I don’t know, Sunset Boulevard, because it was a location broadly associated with the reason for protesting. Otherwise - if location hadn't mattered - they should probably have chosen a field, because it is easier to camp in a field than on Wall Street. Clearly, the occupiers wanted to occupy the place they had issues with. Occupy London Stock Exchange would have done the same, but as we all know they couldn’t go to London Stock Exchange, so they occupied a square outside a cathedral instead, because it was nearby. But as they had no particular issue with the cathedral, they attempted to be as nice to it as possible. Fair enough.

But they were, on the other hand, still occupying the area. And doing this quite successfully, it would seem, as they have caused the cathedral sizeable inconvenience. This is utterly undeniable. Even if the cathedral staff wanted to remain open and the police waterboarded them into coalescence (actually, especially if so, thinking about it), the cathedral has obviously now been caused sizeable inconvenience. St Paul’s has shut and is losing money needed for maintenance. This would not have occurred if the protesters had not occupied the square in front of it. The cathedral has suffered because of the protesters.

Given that (as noted) the protesters are not protesting against the cathedral, I can only conclude that they have massively misfired, and, somewhere along the way, forgotten why protesters occupy particular things.

2. Can the protesters really be credited with making bankers reevaluate their life choices and capitalism? I do know quite a few people who have gone into what is essentially the financial sector. None of them match the stereotype of the ‘greedy banker’. Maybe they are just not rich or fat enough yet. Or, on the other hand, maybe they have just chosen a convenient job which they know will earn them a good – excellent, in fact – living salary. Pretty logical really. I absolutely would have done the same if i'd had any common sense. (But no, i'll work three unpaid internships simultaneously, that'll be really clever and fun.) But the main point here is that my friends haven’t got these boring money jobs because they are massively enchanted with capitalism or because they love money and enjoy spitting on tramps and hippies. Working in finance makes sense for many practical reasons, and that’s it; we say that you ‘sell your soul’ when you get a job in the city precisely because such work is uninspiring and unengaging. 99 percent of the time, working in the city is not love for money, but just convenience. Greedy bankers are straw men; most of them are just bankers, profiting from a system prepared to give them lots of money for reasonable work.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that plenty of bankers and whoever else think that the protesters have a point. Why not? It's not like it's costing them anything. They may have a slightly greater vested interest in capitalism than the protesters, but let’s be honest – everyone knows that capitalism isn’t going to vanish any time soon; the protesters aren’t actually a threat, are they. And although they may depend on it to some extent, it’s deeply unlikely that a majority of bankers actually feel any particular attachment towards capitalism as a system in itself. It's just this weird alien thing giving them stuff. A banker expressing support for the Occupy movement is like a 12-year-old whispering to himself in his bedroom that his headmaster has a silly name, even though he’s just been given a scholarship. Or something. Hmm.

What annoys me most of all, though, is how my default writing mode is 'hugely sarcastic and bitter', but i don't seem able to change that. Plus it is quite late so i will stop. Sorry!

because picking jokes apart makes them funnier

2011-09-03T15:10:00.000+01:00

I wrote a crossword clue today that i'm proud of:

In which one might have weed or hemp - batch almost baked (7,3)

the answer is

CHAMBER POT. Have you finished laughing yet? ok

so i thought that maybe i would spend absolutely ages explaining why i like it so much. Just because i occasionally feel that some people don't really get the whole crossword thing, and think that writing them is a weird hobby - and so maybe picking apart what is actually a fairly average clue and talking about why i like it might help to provide some explanation of how i can possibly be as obsessed with these things as i am. In other words, maybe this post will make people think i am less insane/wrong than they currently do. It's a maybe.

1. IT'S FAIRLY EASY.

By cryptic standards anyway. It's an anagram of OR HEMP BATC, indicated by "baked". The "almost" refers to "batch", and means that the word is only almost complete - we don't want the last letter. Some clues are harder, anyway.

2. HILARIOUS PUN ON "WEED" AND GRAMMATICAL RAMIFICATIONS.

The definition is "In which one might have weed", and when read thus "weed" is the past participle of "to wee". So "one might have weed" uses the perfect aspect. A chamber pot is something in which one might have weed, at some point in the past.

When the sentence is read as a whole, though, it's easier to read "weed" as a noun and the whole thing as something to do with drugs. "Have" here is used as a proper non-auxiliary verb in the present simple, so the two readings of the sentence (surface and cryptic) rely on different interpretations of both "have" and "weed": it's a pun on both words.

3. LOADS OF DRUGS.

I basically wrote this clue because i thought the above-discussed pun on "weed" would be quite funny. It was then just luck that within the letters making up CHAMBER POT were the also-drug-themed words "hemp" and (almost) "batch". Then i went for "baked" as the anagram indicator because a) sometimes people bake drugs right? and b) "baked" is also a slang term for "stoned" (right?) so it seemed like a pretty solidly druggy word to use. [oh and also c) it's an acceptable anagram indicator because it sort of suggests stuff being messed up and changed somehow, yes in an oven but still]

All of this makes the surface reading very compellingly drug-focused, which is good for consistency.

4. WHIMSY.

[i am of the belief that "WHIMSY", along with "SUBTLETY" and "PIXIE DUST", should be capitalised as often and as conspicuously as possible.]

Principally i like the WHIMSY of the definition, "In which one might have weed". I think it's a decent enough definition - it's a slightly weird use of "in which", which means that the whole clue isn't really a sentence but a relative clause, or something, but it isn't unhelpfully ambiguous and so i don't really think this is something to complain about. What the WHIMSY is, though, is the awkwardness of the definition which is a result of the required pun on "weed".

A more conventional wee-based definition would have been something like "In which one might wee" - but i had to have "weed" the past participle in the definition because the pun on this word was the whole point of the clue, and so i basically had no choice but to have a perfect-aspect construction, referring to some weeing which had already taken place. What was then left was a logically acceptable description of a chamber pot - just not one that anyone would ever actually come up with out of choice. Is the best WHIMSY always born of necessity? I don't bloody know.

5. DECEPTION.

The definition is, i think, quite hard to actually locate within the clue. "Weed" leads pretty smoothly on to "or hemp" and so it's not the most obvious breaking point. This makes the whole thing more entertaining, to me anyway. My guess is that an experienced cryptic solver would immediately twig that the answer had nothing to do with cannabis, but i think that even given that it would still take a bit of mental effort to pick out "weed" as the end of the definition. And even when that's done, it's easier to think of "weed" as in unwanted plant than "weed" as in past participle of "to wee". In conclusion, the definition is pretty deeply buried within the clue, which is always satisfying to a setter.

6. UNTAPPED POTENTIAL.

That the second word of the solution is POT is just fantastic. It is obviously a very on-topic word, but its relevance to drugs is not at all exploited in the actual clue. It's just there, as this weirly misplaced congruence that doesn't really make any sense.

7. ONE-UPMANSHIP.

I wrote this clue in the middle of solving Thursday's Guardian crossword by Tramp, which i sort of mostly enjoyed but felt could have been a bit more polished. This clue in particular struck me as just a bit boring:

Set to grow weed in this? (5,3)

for PLANT POT. This got me thinking of the huge network of puns that could be extracted from both "weed" and "pot" and i decided that Tramp probably hadn't trawled the depths of this as much as he might have done here. So i thought that he could have done a better job by using a more outlandish pun on "weed", ie. using it as the past participle of "to wee". And while having that thought, i was also thinking about two-word phrases ending in POT, and that was why i thought of CHAMBER POT, and so that was basically it. I am confident that my clue does indeed use a more interesting pun than Tramp's. On the other hand, my clue is also markedly more bloody stupid, but never mind.

And my favourite thing is that most crossword clues that work are pretty much this cool - not just ones by me or ones that reference drugs or urination. In a good crossword clue it will be difficult to count just how many puns there are. Don't even get me started on my favourite one, which is Paul from the Guardian's

Guitar piece with avant-garde middle section entertaining funky penguin (6,3)

for TUNING PEG.

crap riddles

2011-08-01T23:21:00.001+01:00

That anybody, anywhere, could possibly have considered this to be anything remotely resembling a riddle in any conceivable sense of that word absolutely amazes me. Here it is again.

A woman walked into an office building, looked at the guard, and said her name was Jenny. The next day she walked into the same building, looked at the same guard and said her name was Julie. What is going on?

CLUE: use psychology

ANSWER: The woman has Multiple Personality Disorder. This happens when a traumatic experience causes so much pain that they make another personality to cope with the situation.

If that's a riddle, so are these. This is a decent enough conceit for a blog post right?

A woman walks into a shop and asks how much a particular item costs. The shop assistant informs her that it costs £7.50. The woman thanks the shop assistant and informs him that she will probably buy the item. However, in fact she has no intention of buying the item and simply returns it to the shelf and leaves. What is going on?

CLUE: use philosophy

ANSWER: The item is a Cigarette Lighter. As £7.50 is ludicrously expensive for such an item, the woman decides not to buy it. But because the shop assistant was very kind, she decides to tell a White Lie, that is, a lie which is told to spare other people's feelings, in order to spare his feelings. She is of the philosophical stance that lying in this case is morally acceptable.

A man falls over in the street and lands on his face. He then gets up and carries on walking as if nothing has happened. His clothes are in as good condition as before and he is not injured in any way. What is going on?

CLUE: use physiology

ANSWER: The street in question is made of Rubber and has recently been Cleaned, and so the man, being in excellent physical health generally, is not harmed in any way as a result of his fall.

A woman in perfectly good health goes to a football match. Two weeks later she dies. What is going on?

CLUE: use pathology

ANSWER: While at the football match she contracted a Deadly Virus of which she later died.

A man goes into an office in Germany and cannot communicate with anybody there. Several years later, he returns to the same place and has a brief conversation with the branch manager about international football. What is going on?

CLUE: use pedagogy

ANSWER: The man has been taking evening classes in German and is hence able to converse in German at a basic level.

A woman tells her husband that she and his wife have had an argument. She is not schizophrenic. What is going on?

CLUE: use polygamy

ANSWER: The man is a polygamist and has several wives.

A man goes into an office. He is a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to his large and powerful hindlimbs, his forelimbs are small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bear two clawed digits. What is going on?

CLUE: use palaeontology

ANSWER: The man is in fact not a man, but a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Two brothers go into a bank. One brother robs it; the other does not. What is going on?

CLUE: use phrenology

ANSWER: The brother who robs the bank has an overdeveloped Anterior Inferior Angle of the Parietal Bone, and hence is more prone to acts of theft according to George Combe's system of phrenology. The other brother has no such physical defect.

ETC.

to the person from Santa Barbara, CA who found my blog through googling the phrase "what song goes like da"

2011-07-31T14:11:00.000+01:00

thank you

facts gleaned from the Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music

2011-07-31T13:39:00.010+01:00

Q: What is the difference between Stan Stammers and Elvis Costello?

A: THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF QUALITY EVIDENT IN 80s MUSIC

"OMG!" i hear you say. "How do you know such an interesting fact as that?!" Well, you, it's because a while ago i read the Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music. This crucial volume indexes every single album released in the 1980s with absolutely no exceptions, and also rates every single one of these albums with between one and five stars. Thus is created, within the book's mere 544 pages, a definitive record of all 80s music, and how good it is. Because i greatly respect empirical musicological research, while i was reading it i made a note of all the albums it gave five stars, and of all those it gave one star.

Since then, i have been harbouring my list in top secret - living, i suppose, in fear of what would happen if such a beautifully pure source of fact fell into the wrong hands. Can you deal with this degree of objectivity? Recently, however, i have decided that this is a stupid question, and so i have decided to publish the list on the internet. Here it is.

FIVE STARS
ABC	The Lexicon of Love
Eric Clapton	Crossroads (best of)
Elvis Costello	This Year’s Model and Imperial Bedroom
Fred Frith	Guitar Solos
Michael Jackson	Off the Wall and Thriller
Joy Division	Closer
Kraftwerk	Trans Europe Express
Madonna	The Immaculate Collection (best of)
My Bloody Valentine	Isn’t Anything
NWA	Straight Outta Compton
New Order	The Best Of New Order
Pet Shop Boys	Discography (singles collection)
R.E.M.	Automatic for the People
Stone Roses	Stone Roses
Talking Heads	Remain in Light
Richard Thompson	Watching the Dark (best of)

ONE STAR
Cher	Two the Hard Way
Christian Death	Death Catastrophe Ballet Live and The Decomposition of Violets (live album)
Phil Collins	Dance into the Light
Eek a Mouse & Michigan And Smiley	Live at Reggae Sunsplash
Genesis	From Genesis to Revelation
LaToya Jackson	From Nashville to You
Malcolm McLaren	Swamp Thing
John Mellencamp	Nothing Matters And What If I Did
Freddie Mercury	Solo (a 10-CD box set)
Milli Vanilli	Two X Two (remixes)
Napalm Death	Live Corruption
New Kids on the Block	Merry, Merry Christmas
Klaus Nomi	Simple Man
Hazel O’Connor	Live in Berlin
Ottawan	their entire recorded output
Quiet Riot	Quiet Riot
Sex Gang Children	Ecstasy and Vendetta over new York and Re-enter the Abyss
Sigue Sigue Sputnik	Dress for Excess
Spandau Ballet	Diamond
Spear of Destiny	a live album
Splodgenessabounds	Live and Loud!
Shakin’ Stevens	Merry Christmas Everyone
Curt Smith	Soul on Board and Mayfield
Theatre of Hate	three albums whose names i didn’t write down
Tiffany Dreams	Dreams never Die
Toto	Absolutely Live
Transvision Vamp	The Little Magnets Versus the Bubble of Babble
Tygers of Pan Tang	Burning in the Shade
Ultravox	Revelation
George Winston and Meryl Streep	Velveteen Rabbit
Steve Winwood	Junction 7

So then. What can we learn from this? What can't we learn from this? Maybe it's hard to say. It is pretty interesting, though, that apparently everybody is wrong about My Bloody Valentine: it turns out that their best album is not, as a thousand other best-of lists would testify, Loveless, but rather Isn't Anything. And as mentioned, Stan Stammers is one unlucky guy, featuring in both Theatre of Hate and Spear of Destiny, and hence being on a total of four of the decade's very worst albums - this is more than anyone else, as far as i can make out. Unless you choose to count every one of the ten discs of Freddie Mercury's Solo separately, which i wouldn't recommend. Not that i've listened to any of it at all though obviously.

Can we generalise much about music in the 80s, on this evidence? We can certainly say that it was often not a good idea to release live albums - they ended up comprising almost half of the decade's worst crop, and none at all of the best ones. Christmas albums, even when by the delightful Shakin' Stevens, were also a dangerous game to play. It also seems evident that more good music was made by individuals, and especially guitar-based individuals, than by bands with aggressive or stupid names. And that it was over twice as easy to be exceptionally crap as to be exceptionally good. And that this is especially the case if you choose to count every one of the ten discs of Freddie Mercury's Solo separately. Apart from that, i think the facts speak for themselves.

limericks which end with the same rhyme they start with

2011-07-07T03:46:00.000+01:00

I'm usually slightly disappointed when Edward Lear's limericks end with the same rhyme they start with, probably just because we've come to expect limericks not to do this. But sometimes i quite like the effect of this repetition, such as in this example, which has a really charming pointlessness to it:

There was an old man of Dundee,
Who frequented the top of a tree;
When disturbed by the crows,
He abruptly arose,
And exclaimed, "I'll return to Dundee."

So tonight, when i couldn't sleep for some reason, i wrote eight limericks which adopt this form and here they are because this is obviously newsworthy. Initially they were meant to be in the style of Lear, but here i have been very inconsistent.

There was an old woman of York,
Who would eat with two knives and no fork;
   When asked why this was,
   She replied, "It's because
"There's a really cheap knife shop in York."

There once was a mayor of Chicago,
Who imposed a potato embargo.
   He made people evade
   All potato-based trade,
As they had plenty there, in Chicago.

There was a young lady from Dover,
Who repeated words over and over;
   So in place of just "Cat,"
   She would say, "Cat cat cat,"
And in place of "Dover," "Dover Dover."

A middle-aged woman from Basel
Took a liking to old Lorin Maazel.
   They were married post haste,
   And, with no time to waste,
They bought a small flat back in Basel.

A zealous young sister of Naples
Made a picture of Jesus with staples.
   Having done so, she prayed
   That her work be displayed
In full view of the people of Naples.

A brave ice-cream seller of Moscow
Would supply only frutti di bosco.
   He honestly thought
   That it all would be bought,
For the flavour is well liked in Moscow.

There once was a woman from Riga,
Whose spouse was surprisingly eager;
   He remarked, "I don't know
   "Why I feel like this, though
"It might be because we're in Riga."

A daring young harlot of Cork
Took her clothes off in front of a hawk.
   Though the hawk was no prude,
   The act still seemed quite rude
To the crowd of spectators from Cork.

VERY

2011-06-17T15:28:00.002+01:00

Is there a less rock-and-roll word than "very"?

In the sense of "extremely, but not as extremely as 'extremely' would have suggested"? I don't think there is. It contradicts something pretty innate in how i imagine rock music to be: surely, rock is all about extremes, extremes, not slight intensifications. Rock is implicitly all extremely very. When the Beatles sing "Because the wind is high, it blows my mind", it is clear that they mean the wind is very high. When Bob Dylan sings "Purple clover, Queen Anne lace, crimson hair across your face", we're clearly not talking about a sort of light mauveish clover or moderately brownish-red hair, possibly dyed or something; he obviously means very purple clover, very crimson hair, and presumably the Queen Anne lace is authentic, also. I am somewhat aware that my point has now lost all credibility because of how ridiculously terrible my examples are, but hopefully you more or less get the idea. "Very" is a flat redundancy in most rock lyrics. Most pop lyrics, in fact; how about this one: "Don't'cha [sic] wish your girlfriend was hot like me?" That the Pussycat Dolls mean very hot, not just kind of alright-looking, is very clear.

However, can you imagine them actually singing "Don't'cha wish your girlfriend was very hot like me?"? I can't. That would be stupid. And, in fact (that's right, FACT), it is statistically provable that "very" features surprisingly little in popular music lyrics. Observe:

"Very" returns about 5 billion hits from Google, and apparently Google indexes more or less 45 billion pages; that's one in every seven pages which contains the word "very". [that seems mad. Let's carry on though.] On the other hand, SongMeanings has 16,459 results for "very" and 538,661 overall; that means "very" features in only 0.21 out of every seven songs. You don't need a Master's degree in musicology to realise that this is far less. You are ALMOST EXACTLY FIVE TIMES less likely to encounter the word "very" in a song than you are on the internet.

I think this is a good thing. Because, as i suggested above, "very" often seems redundant. I'm not even going to try to describe how disappointed i was when i discovered that Stevie Wonder was singing "Very superstitious" at the start of that song; what a drab lyric. And how about Johnny Cash's "I find it very very easy to be true" from "I Walk the Line" - well, that just seems insincere. [also, this is apparently a fair assessment, if the song was written for his first wife, as is claimed.] Two fantastic songs, both almost ruined by the word "very", very sad.

I wonder if the music sort of performs the type of intensification that "very" never seems to need to provide in songs. That is, if we might better transcribe a song's lyrics as "very [(the actual lyrics)]" - with the "very" being basically implied simply by the presence of some music. Maybe this would also explain why one of "very"'s most common replacements in pop, "so", seems so much less daft. While it would have been ridiculous for the Beatles to sing "I'm very tired" (of course you are, otherwise why would you have written a bloody song about it), "I'm so tired" is absolutely fine - maybe because we can interpret "so" here as in (something like) "thusly", ie. referring to the music. Probably not though i suppose.

As if to prove my point, here is a song called "Very" by Moby, which isn't particularly interesting and therefore perhaps might just as well have no title at all.

what if our dreams were true

2011-06-08T16:05:00.000+01:00

This morning i woke up with two distinct songs stuck in my head. But, because (i suppose) this more or less counts as a dream, i thought they were just one song. A song which went roughly like this.

As you will now have gathered, if you have listened to the whole thing, i am not much cop at sound editing, although to be fair i've never really used Audacity before, and i decided early on in this project that it was really not worth investing serious time in. However, i feel the result speaks for itself. All that need be added is that dreams are well weird. And Gloria Gaynor and Del Shannon should have had kids.

lessons in SEO #85: lindsay lohan bikini

2011-06-02T12:52:00.000+01:00

It usually annoys me when people bash contemporary art and contemporary art criticism, accuse it of being vacuous, pretentious, i-could-have-done-that, my-five-year-old-could-have-done-that, my-blind-retarded-hamster-can-paint-better-than-that, and so forth. Such claims are often wrong, and far more annoying than the art or the criticism they aim to ridicule. However, reading this is enough to convince me that sometimes such bashing is actually borderline worthwhile.

This article idolizes the above film more than the film idolizes Lohan. Jones also uses the film as an example of how "The moving image is much more artistically interesting than the still photograph, to me anyway", but unfortunately nowhere explains what has led him to this conclusion, which is (despite the gratuitous "to me anyway") deliberately polemical in a way that really does require backing up. In the absence of such backing up, all i am able to think is that he prefers moving images because there are, like, lots more images in a film than in a single picture, so that obviously makes it more artistically interesting, perhaps in the same way that there are lots more words in a novel than in a poem so clearly the former is a superior creative genre, any day of the bloody week. Also Webern is really crap because all of his music is short, and incidentally Stockhausen's Licht is clearly the greatest opera of all time, because it lasts like a week or something.

Never mind though; i assume it is Jones's "thing" as an art critic that he is not ashamed to make bold statements and to dangle a frowned-upon but still popular Romanticist notion of value-judgement in front of his readers. That's just what he does. He also wrote this strange thing recently, in which he asks how many truly great contemporary British artists there really are at the moment, accusing - get this - the media of making the contemporary art scene seem better than it really is. After all, let's do some counting, there were only about "20 artists [who] genuinely mattered in late 19th-century France at the dawn of modernism, one of the truly great moments of art history". Because of course it is possible to judge contemporary art with hindsight.

the face that sells

2011-05-28T10:28:00.001+01:00

score

ps. i wish i was Georges Brassens

2011-05-26T13:48:00.000+01:00

I was a bit surprised to learn that Georges Brassens never received any musical training. Mainly, i suppose, because he's obviously incredibly good at music, and makes me, with my two music degrees but very little practical skill, look a bit stupid. But i do think there's also a canniness to his music which really seems to indicate training, mastery, knowledge as well as ability. His handling of harmony is perfect, his counterpoint is flawless. And how about the self-control of this Villon setting:

It always feels to me like Brassens is in absolutely complete technical control of his compositions, including their level of complexity, in a way which is rare in popular music. And so i started to wonder about how my finding out about his lack of formal education might affect (or might not affect) my opinion of him overall.

The main point of comparison to raise is this: when critics write about the Beatles, the idea is invariably that their achievements are particularly impressive - more impressive - because they were not musically "educated". This perspective might sound obvious enough, but i don't think it's entirely fair. It suggests that when we listen to "Eleanor Rigby" or "She's Leaving Home" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" we are meant to go "ooh wow" and marvel at how sophisticated the Beatles are even though they don't know precisely how and why one must resolve an augmented sixth. That is, there is just enough naïveté in their music, that they end up endorsing our inherited notions of quality; they are palpably outsiders, but contributing to the canonic tradition, in their own way. How should we hear the harshness of "Eleanor Rigby" - as just-slightly-naïve harmonic experimentalism or as sage folk pastiche? As far as the academic community is concerned, the answer is both, and thank Christ for that.

I think Brassens might be the most effective rejoinder to this slightly have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too perspective on popular music that i've found. He does, at least, prove that it is possible to acquire a perfectly thorough working knowledge of the intricacies of tonal harmony without having first passed through some sort of system, and his essential lack of experimentalism only confirms his full understanding of his chosen style. And though this is to say that he's better than the Beatles at tonal harmony in the traditional sense (in the same way that i should probably acknowledge that, oh i don't know, Brahms is better at it than Brassens), this absolutely is not to say that he's better than the Beatles in any overall sense (and nor Brahms etc. etc.). Brassens just happens to have picked a musical style which is more basically dependent on complete control of traditional compositional techniques than the Beatles', whose style is more multifarious.

All of which is just to say that if popular music can ever be good, which it can, it has to be allowed to depend on whatever set of musical criteria its creators happen to have chosen for it, and it has not necessarily to be made to depend on "purely technical" criteria, such as one might encounter in a textbook, because if it does so then Georges Brassens must surely win every time.

I don't like comparing music to language, because the comparison always falls apart very quickly (as soon as someone says TRANSLATION, for instance). But perhaps we can push it just so far as to observe that while Chinese may be a more formally complex language than English, in some moderately objective sense, this clearly does not mean that Chinese literature is inherently better than English literature. Which is why searching for intricacies in popular music is a very annoying habit, as sometimes they are there and sometimes they are not, and while this may make a difference to how we listen to things, it shouldn't make any difference to our evaluation of them.

Hence i'd hold that "a bit surprised", rather than "really impressed", is the fairer reaction to learning about Brassens's lack of formal training. He is good at the technical stuff, and this is fortunate, because it is a key element of his style. How he got there is not the question. The Beatles, i would say, are less good at the technical stuff, but this is not unfortunate, because their music doesn't really have anything to do with that, or doesn't mean to anyway. We simply have to judge different artists' music according to the different sets of criteria which their music establishes. This is something we would probably do naturally if we weren't constantly surrounded by people and/or Wikipedia shouting facts at us about artists' backgrounds. Though, obviously, i did choose to visit the page myself. Um, here's another song.

Of course I have a pass. I am the Italian Prime Minister.

2011-05-23T15:28:00.000+01:00

You should read this because it's FOR ME. Also because it's good and stuff.

perhaps i am spending TOO long on songmeanings.net

2011-05-22T11:19:00.001+01:00

What's your favourite rhyme in pop music? Do you have one? How stupid a question is that? I'm not even entirely sure what my own answer is, come to think of it, though i'm pretty tempted to go for Jarvis Cocker's remarkable "Your name was Deborah, Deborah / It never suited ya, suited ya" from Pulp's "Year 2000".

I do definitely have a least favourite one, though. Allow me to quote some Coldplay.

Said I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war,
If you can tell me something worth fighting for.
- Coldplay, "A Rush of Blood to the Head"

I'd be lying if i claimed i could explain precisely why i find this quite as annoying as i do. I think it has a lot to do with the horribly earnest tone of the whole song, the way the plangent, bland music seems to lend support to the words, as if they were really interesting and original. But it's also particularly the way that Chris Martin presents this rhyme. There's just something about both the words and his performance of them which absolutely shouts out LOOK WHAT I DID LOOK WHAT I DID I MADE A RHYME AND WENT ALL POLITICAL, AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME THAT I DID THERE, I'M LIKE A POET AND THAT. It is presented as a serious, insightful and original political statement, and it isn't one.

However, in waging war against this, i have to ask myself what i'm actually fighting for - because rhyming "war" with "fighting for" is a really really popular thing to do.

Look:

Five hundred and five results. That is very nearly one in every thousand songs listed on songmeanings.net. And, if we make the completely reasonable assumptions that a) answers.com is entirely correct and b) songmeanings.net contains a representative selection of the total number of pop songs released everywhere, this means that there are 28 (.3) songs released each year which rhyme "war" with "fighting for". That's more than two a month. That's millions. And it's not even just millions, it's more than this number:

And it completely trounces "mercedes / ladies", though i reckon this is one to watch for the future.

Of course, not all of them are incredibly annoying like the Coldplay one, some of them are by incredibly cool people, and some don't even rhyme "war" and "fighting for" at all, but just contain both terms. But quite a lot of them do; i think the absolute low point is this Robbie Williams song, in which he essentially sidles up to a battlefield and goes "Guys guys GUYS, what's all this about, eh?"

Singing,
I won't go to war,
Lay down your guns,
What are we fighting for?
- Robbie Williams, "Happy Easter (War is Coming)"

Anyway. Can you find a more overused rhyme in pop music? I shall only accept proof based on facts derived from eccentric use of search engines.

musicology cash cow elucidates the use-mention distinction

2011-05-20T13:56:00.000+01:00

actually, i'll beat a path to your door even if your Michael-Gove-basher isn't that good

2011-05-19T16:13:00.000+01:00

This afternoon i've been reading about mousetraps, and in particular about an apparently-famous phrase about mousetraps attributed to Emerson:

Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.

I heard this for the first time a few months ago when it was referred to in a Guardian crossword clue by Brendan (22 across). And i have a strange fascination with the phrase's wikipedia page - partly because the page's title is comically long, but also because it tells a pretty interesting story. This more detailed account of the history of both the phrase and the mousetrap (mainly the mousetrap though) confirms that:

1. the phrase was never written down by Emerson and may well be a misquotation, first recorded seven years after his death by an admirer called Sarah Yule. Why she happened to choose mousetraps as an example is nowhere explained - nowhere, on the internet.

2. the mousetrap has since become "far and away the most invented machine in all of American history".

There is (to my knowledge) no proof that the popularity of the phrase is directly responsible for the profusion of mousetrap designs in the US patent office - but this connection is implied in numerous places online. There's evidence for you, right there. And, though i obviously can't claim to be an expert, i can't think of another reason why the mousetrap should be quite as frequently invented as all that; mice can't possibly represent the biggest problem to American life, can they, so there is obviously some distortion of scale going on here. And it does seem to make weirdly good sense to attribute this to "Emerson's" phrase - it's sort of memorable, in a way, and they do love Emerson over there.

The phrase has been criticized before. It generated this response from Elbert Hubbard back in 1912:

No one will make a path to your door nowadays, no matter how good your mousetraps are, unless you advertise them widely and extensively and arrange to have a free lunch at the mousetrap-factory, with automobiles to meet all visitors at the railroad-station. Good mousetrap-factories have concrete walks and luring flowerbeds along the way, where hollyhocks grow lush and lusty.

But this protest was apparently in vain, and there are now over 440 mousetrap patents in the US, despite the fact that (as Hubbard appears to predict) vanishingly few have had any commercial success. Whether or not this lack of success can be attributed to low levels of lustre among the factories' flowerbeds is a question beyond the scope of this post. What is relevant is this: designing mousetraps remains weirdly popular. "Emerson" has "spoken".

I just can't help wondering how much of a better place the world would be if Sarah Yule had happened to write down "Build a better cure for cancer, and the world will beat a path to your door", or "Build a better renewable energy source, and the world will beat a path to your door", or "Build a better world peace machine, and the world will beat a path to your door", or "Build a better system of government, and the world will beat a path to your door", or "Build a better Michael-Gove-basher, and the world will beat a path to your door", or "Build a better Andrew-Lansley-basher, and the world will beat a path to your door". I could go on. BUT I HAVE MOUSETRAPS TO BUILD

short story #1

2011-05-18T16:35:00.000+01:00

All of Lady Gaga's teachings, in a big list

2011-05-15T11:23:00.002+01:00

Well, this is definitely an excellent idea.

Simon Hattenstone’s interview with Lady Gaga in the Guardian yesterday is brilliant not only because it quotes her describing her hair as "a surrealist extension of my being," but also because of the emphasis Hattenstone places on the "religious" aspect of the Gaga machine, which for me is by far the most interesting thing about her.

The previous day she had said it's difficult to talk about the show to people who haven't seen it. She was right, I say, it's like a revivalist meeting. "Yes, it is. It is a religious experience. But it's like a pop cultural church." She pauses. "I never intended for the Monster Ball to be a religious experience, it just became one."

She's become the Billy Graham of pop, I say. She laughs. "It's more self-worship, I think, not of me. I'm teaching people to worship themselves."

Whatever. Earlier in the article, she says:

"It’s best not to ask questions and just enjoy."

I'm convinced, anyway. Gaga-ism is a religion. Why not. The only question which remained unanswered in my mind after reading the article was this: what does this religion preach? What is she actually telling us to do? Surely, if it's a religion, people are trying to follow Lady Gaga's teachings, or something.

The thing is, these teachings have not been grouped together anywhere; they remain haphazardly strewn among her songs. What a shame.

But then i thought this: wouldn't it be great if all her teachings were collected, and put in the same place? As a sort of reference point? You know, like a big book of religion?

So i spent most of yesterday afternoon looking through all of Lady Gaga's songs and—have you got a better idea? No? OK then—compiling a list of every phrase in the imperative mood.

You're welcome, Gaga fans! Call it a Bible if you must, just don't doubt its accuracy. Or, obviously, err from its word.

I've also included some Gaga Fan Art, which i found on the internet, because everyone loves picture bibles. I also changed font, because Trebuchet is quite similar to Helvetica, which sounds a bit like "Heretical". Anyway, i hope you learn something.

Baby boy, get on. (Kaboom)

Baby, don't look at me like that: I don't belong to you. (No Way)

Baby, make it to me. (Again Again)

Baby, take me for a ride; maybe get a little high. (Wonderful)

Be like us: filthy glamorous. (Sexy Ugly)

Beat me, spank me, daddy; come on, touch my body! Say that good things come to those who wait; come and take it, mamma, before it’s too late! (Big Girl Now)

Beat on my drum, 'cause you know I come come. (Kaboom)

Believe me when I say that I will be OK, and listen! (Changing Skies)

Boy, get your ass out on the floor (Big Girl Now)

Break out your glasses. (SuperStar)

C-c-c-crazy, get your ass in my bed, baby: you'll be just my summer boyfriend. (Summerboy)

Charge it up, 'cause babe, you're one of a kind. (Reloaded)

Check this hand, because I'm marvellous. (Poker Face)

Conserve your juices, 'cause I'm gonna take you on a marathon. (Reloaded)

Copy me, celebrities! Consume us! (Kandy Life)

'Cuz yeah, this room is crowded but I am so alone in it. Help me please! (I Wish You Were Here)

Dance, Mr. Radio Nerd! (Filthy Pop)

Do whatever you like, Scheiße-scheiße, Scheiße be mine. Scheiße be mine. Put on a show tonight. (Scheiße)

Don't be scared, I've done this before: show me your teeth. (Teeth)

Don't ask me how or why. (The Fame)

Don't be a drag, just be a queen. (Born this Way)

Don't be afraid to shake that butt right. (Sexy Ugly)

Don't be dirty ice cream, baby! (Dirty Ice Cream)

Don't be sad when the sun goes down: you'll wake up and I’m not around (Summerboy)

Don't be! (Born This Way)

Don't be, don't be (dirty ice cream). (Dirty Ice Cream)

Don't bother me, Alejandro! (Alejandro)

Don't call me Gaga! (Monster)

Don't call my name, Alejandro! (Alejandro)

Don't call my name, Benni Ponto! (Benni Ponto)

Don't call my name, Roberto! (Alejandro)

Don't forget my lipstick! (I left it in your ashtray.) (Boys Boys Boys)

Don't forget your money, little honey! (Retro Physical)

Don't hate me! Don't hate me! (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Don't hide yourself in regret: just love yourself, and you're set. (Born this Way)

Don't look at me like that! (Monster)

Don't make me lean on 'em, baby boy: what's up? (Kaboom)

Don't say a word: I'm sure that it won't be enough to erase what I know. (No Way)

Don't shoot! My heart is on mute. (Red and Blue)

Don't stop for anyone: we're plastic, but we still have fun! (Paparazzi)

Don't want love, just gimme your bling bling! Listen to me, boy, 'cause I need your thing thing. (Kaboom)

Don't you try to touch me; don't you try to catch me. (Americano)

Everybody wrap it up; everybody wrap it up. (Ribbons)

Fantasize I'm the track that you're tweakin'; blow my heart up; put your hands on my waist; pull the fader; run it back with original flavor; cue me up. (Starstruck)

Find your freedom in the music; find your Jesus; find your Kubrick. (Dance in the Dark)

Fold them; let them hit me; raise it, baby; stay with me. Love game, intuition; play the cards with spades to start. (Poker Face)

Follow me; don't be scared! Dance, dance, dance, with your hands, hands, hands above your head, like Jesus! (Electric Chapel)

Get back, bunny! (Disco Heaven)

Get close to me! (One Chance)

Get your hot rods ready to rumble! (Highway Unicorn [Road to Love])

Get your last fix and your last hit; grab your old girl with her new tricks! (Brown Eyes)

Get your things and go; you can take the dinner left over from last night. (No Way)

Give it up, just let your body! (Out of Control)

Give it up, put it out! (Out of Control)

Give me something I wanna be: retro glamour, Hollywood, yes! we live for the fame. (The Fame)

Give me something that I can wrestle to the ground. (Changing Skies)

Give me something! I wanna see television and hot blondes in odd positions. (The Fame)

Give yourself prudence, and love your friends. Subway kid, rejoice your truth! (Born this Way)

Go ahead and don't believe! (No Floods)

Go turn out the light. Don't be afraid, tonight's the night! (Something Crazy)

Go! Your your muscle carve it out, work it, hustle! Don't slow! Drive it, clean it lysol, bleed it. Spend the last dough in your pocko! (Just Dance)

Go, go, go don't be difficult about it, Get off it! (Retro Physical)

Grab those tights and lacy bottoms! Don't leave home without 'em! Let's take off our fancy pants tonight! (Fancy Pants)

Groove. Slam. Work it back. Filter that. Baby, bump that track. (Starstruck)

Have my love, baby. (Wonderful)

Hello everybody! Get a ride to the west side; kiss the girl with her tongue tied. Hello everybody! Walk it out, ‘cause you don't care; shut down like software. Hello everybody! Take a sip for the hip hop; fuel up at the rest stop. (Retro Dance Freak)

Hello midnight lover, lover! Hold that lady tighter; shoot that bullet through her! (Retro Physical)

Hey, hey, hey, look at that girl! (Super Lover)

Hold her hand through the black light. (Rock Show)

Hold her; tell her that you need her. Please undress her slowly—uh-oh! Never hold the girl too tightly: she can't breathe when you speak—uh-oh, uh-oh, uh-oh! (Rock Show)

Hold me and love me. (LoveGame)

Hold me, daddy, real tight. (Sexy Ugly)

Hold me down and take control (mess up my hair, all crazy sexual). Do it like an animal (hot in the jungle, exotic apparel). (Animal)

Hold up, hold up! Give me a way to get to know ya! Hold up, hold up, if you’re tryinna’ take my clothes off! (Super Lover)

Hold up, bitch: I could stomp your face in. (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Hold your mamma real tight. (Sexy Ugly)

Honey, just take your time, close her eyes. (Rock Show)

I say: change your pants, and meet me in the bathroom for a private tour and dance. (Kandy Life)

If you can't afford the best, don't be stressed: take a rest! Get a job, do it right: it's my birthday all night. (Ribbons)

Judas, kiss me if offenced, or wear an ear condom next time. (Judas)

Just dance! (Just Dance)

Just give in; don't give up baby: open up your heart and your mind to me. Just know, when that glass is empty, that the world is gonna bend. (So Happy I Could Die)

Just put your paws up. (Born This Way)

Just sing a little song. (Let Love Down)

Just smoke my cigarette, and hush. (Alejandro)

Just take my hand; let me take you away. (One Chance)

Keep it cool! (Just Dance)

Keep it cool at the freakshow! (Rock Show)

Knock it; pump it; wash it; bump it. (Glitter and Grease)

Know that I am not emotional! (Changing Skies)

Let it climb; let it ignite. (Government Hooker)

Let me see your body work, work. (Kaboom)

Let me watch you break it down. (Just Dance)

Let them hoes fight! Stop stressin' on me for the attention. (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Light me up with me on top. (Christmas Tree)

Look at him, look at me. (Monster)

Look at me! (Watcha lookin' at?) Look at me! (Watcha starin' at?) (Vanity)

Man, man, look at this: these hoes fightin' in the streets! (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Never stop again and again. (Again Again)

Now drop it to the floor, baby: get raw! (Big Girl Now)

Now show me your fangs (my religion is you). (Teeth)

Open your mouth, boy! (Teeth)

Play it for me, baby, give it to me! (Filthy Pop)

Please check the number, or try your call again. (Telephone)

Please know: there's nothing I'm concealing. (Bloody Mary)

Pull the shades down low. We're both ready, so lose control. (Something Crazy)

Push it in Brooklyn. (Glitter and Grease)

Put on your shades, 'cause I'll be dancing in the flames tonight. (Edge of Glory)

Put your hands on me, John F. Kennedy! (Government Hooker)

Put your hands on my waist; pull the fader; run it back with original flavor. Get the breakdown first. (Starstruck)

Rejoice and love yourself today! (Born this Way)

Rock like us, silly and gorgeous. (Sexy Ugly)

Rub that glitter and grease around; rub that glitter and grease around; rub that glitter and grease around; grease around. (Glitter and Grease)

Run, run! (Dance in the Dark)

See that girl; watch her go. (Fancy Pants)

See the lonely girl out on the weekend. (Fooled Me Again, Honest Eyes)

Shake your kitty (meow); put your arms around me, babe: I'm giving you permission to feel me. (Shake Your Kitty)

Show me that you've got the ammunition, that you're good for a while, for a while, for a while. (Reloaded)

So, baby, turn the record on; play that song! (Brown Eyes)

So, DJ, play: let the record spin again! (Wunderland)

"So hold your head up, girl, and you'll go far! Listen to me when I say!" (Born This Way)

So go ahead and label me whatever you like, but nothing’s quite as sexy as a woman is fine. (Vanity)

So let the sound bring me back. (Words)

So now go back to the beat; get up on your feet. (Super Lover)

So please show me that smile; make me laugh, for just a little while; and breathe in your one breath. (Captivated)

So, silly boy, get out my face (my face)! Why do you like the way regrets taste? So, silly boy, get out my hair (my hair)! (Silly Boy)

So take your time; don't be afraid! (One Chance)

Space Cowboy, just play that track. (Starstruck)

Spin it 'til it's platinum! (Filthy Pop)

Spin that record, babe! (Just Dance)

Spin that shit; spin it 'cause it's fabulous! (Filthy Pop)

Start believin' in this crazy love we're leadin'! (Captivated)

Hold me closely; make me sweeter. (Captivated)

Stop calling, stop calling! (Dirty Ice Cream)

Stop calling, stop calling! (Telephone)

Stop comin' at me; guns are a-blazin'! (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Stop telephonin' me! (Telephone)

Stop, please! Just let me go, Alejandro! (Alejandro)

Take a bite of my bad girl meat; take a bite of me; show me your teeth; let me see you're mean! (Teeth)

Take a minute for us and relax, relax! (Disco Heaven)

Take a ride on an airplane; take a bath in champagne! What's up everybody? Watch the girls all curtsey for the paparazzi! (Retro Dance Freak)

Take me for a ride. (Summerboy)

Take off your fancy clothes! Yeah, baby: don't be shy! (Fancy Pants)

Take your bank before I pay you out. (Poker Face)

Talk to me, baby. (Wunderland)

Tell 'em how you feel, girls. (Dance in the Dark)

Tell me something that'll save me: I need a man who makes me alright. Just tell me when it's alright; tell me something that'll change me. (Teeth)

Tell me you'll be mine. (Fever)

Throw your head back, girly; throw it like those girls in the movies. We got a show to put on your dress; take a minute for us and relax, relax. (Disco Heaven)

Touch me! T-touch me, baby, but don't mess up my hair! Love me! L-love me crazy, but don't get too attached: this is a brief affair! (Vanity)

Walk, walk, fashion, baby! Work it, move that bitch crazy. (Bad Romance)

Watch me, watch me swing my weave! (Let Them Hoes Fight)

Watch your heart when we're together! (Boys Boys Boys)

When you see a girl this pretty, shake her! Shake her, shake her kitty, when you see a girl that's pretty. Shake your, shake your, shake that kitty! (Shake Your Kitty)

Whenever you're afraid, or someone's far away, never give in! (Words)

Work your blonde (Jean) Benet Ramsey! (Dance in the Dark)

Work your body ‘til you make your body hurt, hurt! (Kaboom)

Wrap them presents up (in ribbons). (Ribbons)

Yeah, babe! Come on, move it, move it. (What?) If you want me, you better prove it, prove it. (Let's go!) (Shut Up)

Yeah, bring those fancy pants! (Disco Heaven)

Yeah, work that shit! Work it like a Hilton! (Filthy Pop)

(If you click on the pictures it'll take you back to the source. I found lots of them here. For the text, i naturally turned to songmeanings.net, because i didn't just want the words, i wanted the meanings.)

writing comic strips is harder than you might imagine, i hope

2011-05-14T14:28:00.000+01:00

None of my high school kids turned up for their lesson with me this Thursday, which was actually pretty understandable, given that the class was optional, and they'd had the exam we had been preparing for the previous day, and lots of them had other commitments anyway. On the other hand, i was a little annoyed, as i had prepared a FUN EXERCISE for them to do. So when they didn't come to the lesson, i decided to do this exercise myself, several times. Definitely a completely rational decision. Selected highlights from this crucial occurrence are presented below.

Sorry for the massive gap, which is for legibility purposes.

musicology cash cow says...

2011-05-10T16:38:00.000+01:00

in praise of things about which i have no opinion at all, such as football

2011-05-08T23:04:00.002+01:00

Much as i enjoy watching football, i don't really ever put enough effort into this activity to have any real opinions about anything. I read pretty much the bare minimum of sports journalism possible to keep up with the most absolutely essential stories, and avoid any subsidiary articles at all costs, lest i read enough that i might start using words like 'cynical' or 'clinical' or 'speculative' with as little linguistic sensitivity as certain football writers. And also, i've only started taking any interest in the sport at all in about the past year, so i still don't know as much basic football info as most proper fans do. Add to these compelling arguments the facts that i don't play the game and don't support a team, and you will surely be thoroughly convinced that i am not a particularly well-informed or insightful consumer of football. But i do quite like watching them kick the ball around and stuff.

So, today being the day of the biggest match of the season, i just about decided that i might quite like to join my housemate in watching the game. The thing is that because of my complete football ignorance, as outlined above, i don't really like watching it with people, for fear that i will be exposed as a massive fraud or something, and so when i do watch it with people i always feel a bit awkward and never really know how to respond to anything. I sometimes dare an 'ooh' or 'wow', but usually substantially after the commentator has summarised what has just happened, so that i can be moderately sure that at least one other person in the world (the commentator) is of broadly the same opinion as that which i have just implied that i hold myself through my particular choice of vowel sound. That's right: i think to myself 'If the commentator had expressed that last point he made in the form of a single vowel sound, of the type which people often make when responding to an event, what would that vowel sound have been?' and then i articulate that vowel sound in such a way as to appear unobtrusive to my companions.

And today, while pondering how best to respond to my housemate's as-far-as-i-know-reasonable-enough argument that Ji-Sung Park is an underrated player, i began to wonder why i was quite this petrified of expressing myself. In a sense it doesn't overly concern me that i am not particularly talkative on the issue of football, because i genuinely don't have any insights into it - but it still feels a bit pathetic to act quite as blandly as this, in any situation at all. And after all, for most fans football seems almost to be about expressing opinions, however blatantly stolen from commentators, unsubstantiated, or factually inaccurate they are. I've always assumed that it was the opportunity which football provides people with to express their own thoughts - however half-baked and derivative, still essentially theirs - which was the cause, or one cause anyway, of its mass appeal. It's like the appeal of sticking a trending topic into a post on Twitter - it's still essentially an act of creativity, however puny and crap, but it's one which is so fully endorsed by such a large number of other people that you can be fully confident that you haven't made a fool of yourself. It is, then, because i lack this basic confidence that i never see fit to express myself on the subject of football.

The other reason that i feel awkward when watching football with people, though, is that i'm sure that my vowel-based method of participation must be pretty annoying. My response to the Ji-Sung Park question, which was sort of a '...yeuh...', actually even annoyed me. But this raises the question of what else i might do, at all, because i absolutely do lack adequate knowledge to compile an acceptable response to most arguments concerning football. And i simply can't think of a better method. One thing i know is that i don't have the capacity to simply parrot the commentators' views on things (except in the form of single, inscrutable vowel sounds, in which form it is obviously fine) - because behaving thus with reference to any topic at all is one of my least favourite things ever.

Blind adoption of general-consensus opinions particularly annoys me, predictably enough i suppose, with regard to music. To me, the sentence 'I think Beethoven was a great composer' is almost semantically invalid; i really don't care what you think - if you can find anyone who knows who the guy was and holds a different 'opinion', i will buy you an ice-cream. They are not really YOUR opinions if you have plagiarized them from a reliable source. And so while this does mean that i am fairly cynical about how truly opinion-based many football fans' 'opinions' really are, i am still unwilling to enter this particular fray myself. [Also, note how i used the word 'cynical' in that sentence, even though i did not use the word 'tackle'.]

But i wonder how i would feel if i encountered a music fan who knew as little about music as i do about football; how i would want them to act, according to my apparently rather vehement views on what is and what isn't acceptable. According to the above, it would be consistent to judge them harshly if they regurgitated whatever they'd read last week in Gramophone or went 'Ah! how wonderful!' every time you mentioned someone they'd heard of. But if they didn't express any opinions at all then they would simply be 'annoying', in the same way that i am probably annoying when i watch football, desperately trying to avoid committing to any view or revealing ignorance in any way. And, needless to say, if they went 'ooh' and 'oh' and so on all the way through a concert then that would definitely be yet more annoying still.

If this fictional music fan genuinely had no original opinions about music, which is obviously completely fair enough, then i don't know what a good way for him or her to behave would constitute. Which definitely isn't fair at all. That is, my own opinions are not fair. My opinion is wrong. Which conclusion seems extremely unfair on me. Perhaps that's why i like football anyway, because it eats my opinions and lets me be. Hypocrisy is pretty damn difficult when you are completely devoid of thought.

What song goes like da na na na na da na na na I think it has the words turn up the music or turn up your music and I think it is by some female pop disco dance music band?

2011-04-29T22:40:00.001+01:00

As the first part of this post is quite long, I shall punctuate it with some ridiculous questions I just found on the internet.

It's no secret that musical notation is a problematic issue. If music exists in sound, which seems reasonable to say, then the precise status of any written account of it is always going to be questionable. Any musical notation is in some sense a compromise, an inauthentic replica of the 'real' event, which is the work's performance. In classical music this problem is circumvented somewhat by the established tradition in which a 'score' precedes performance; the score is a prescription to performance and thus has a vital and well-defined function. That the ensuing performance will be conditioned by the limitations of the score's system of notation is arguably a problem, but in the context of the concert-hall tradition it is very much a manageable one.

Everything becomes far more complicated when contemporary popular music is thrown into the mix; this music will often require no musical notation at any point during its production, and if notation is brought into play it is often retrospective. My favourite example is the incredibly bizarre The Beatles: Complete Scores, which contains really awful transcriptions of everything ever released by the Beatles. Though such a project might be considered entirely futile, it is at least true that the inevitable inaccuracy of this written account is largely mitigated by the equally inevitable inauthenticity of anybody actually trying to use the score to replicate the Beatles' performances.

That said, it remains questionable whether it's really fair to put popular songs into a medium such as Westernized notation which is unknown to many of the writers of such songs (eg. the Beatles), and also to a majority of their listeners. This problem becomes even more acute in the case of music from other cultures, whose music might well be very awkward to accommodate into the arbitrary format of staves and crotchets and so forth 'we' happen to use: perhaps the music makes structural use of timbre, perhaps the tuning system is different; perhaps etc. etc. The ethnomusicologist Kofi Agawu has argued that Westernized transcription still might be worth a go - in a crude paraphrase, preserving music inauthentically is probably better than not preserving it at all - but this argument still feels, unfortunately enough, like something of a compromise.

The big question, then, is how (and if) we should best account for non-Western-classical music in a written form. Perhaps a different system of notation would be more appropriate - maybe one which doesn't require esoteric knowledge in quite the same way that the current standard one does. What system this might be, though, does not appear clear to musicologists at the moment.

However, unbeknownst to them, THE INTERNET HAS SOLVED THIS PROBLEM COMPLETELY, via answers.com, which frequently serves as the perfect intermediary between the inquisitive consumer of music and the music itself (ITSELF). And it does this, marvellously enough, simply by according a far greater respect to the intuitive power of music aficionados than anybody in history has ever before dared. Hence, the following exchanges are possible:

That last one is pretty difficult to hear - but I think they're talking about the bit in it that goes Da da da da da da.

Crazy, eh. It's a bit like a form of shorthand where you leave out all the vowels - only here you also leave out all the consonants, and then you write 'da da da' instead. An effective enough method, it would appear, to take us seamlessly from

What is particularly striking about that example is how the answerer somehow managed to overlook the numerous errors in the question – there are, surely, the wrong number of 'da's, and the separation indicated above by the lack of dash in the middle also doesn't make any sense. No less remarkable is how the answerer successfully chose not to bow to the common-sense inclination which suggests that it is virtually impossible to separate this song's refrain from the repeatedly shouted word 'Saturday', as the asker has apparently done. 'Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting' is a really remarkable call - certainly not something I'd ever have thought of as the answer. But still, there we are. The spirit of music must surely have been at work here, to guide us so securely to the solution. That or it's wrong, I suppose.

Sadly enough, many of the stacks of such questions on answers.com are still awaiting a response. As just one example:

To be fair, though, this question might just be an expression, along the lines of 'Good lord!' or 'What the hell?' – which I suppose doesn’t really necessitate a response as such.

Anyway, the point is that it's never been easier to communicate music through text than the answers.com forum makes it, and we should be embracing this huge advancement in transcription technology. I would like to see more music journalists writing about that bit at the begging that goes like da da DA da da and then there’s a guitar solo or something I think its sung by a woman or whatever. Oh yeah thats it its weberns' concerto for nine instruments second movement thx

it's alright everyone...

2011-04-27T16:11:00.000+01:00

...wikipedia has a list of sexually active popes

why Frederick Gustavus Burnaby (1842-1885) is better than everyone at everything

2011-04-24T23:19:00.003+01:00

- he was said to be the strongest man in the British army, which he joined in 1859.

- he regularly wrote for The Times, Vanity Fair, and numerous other journals.

- he could break a horseshoe with his hands.

- he crossed the Channel in a balloon.

- he claimed to be descended from Edward I.

- he could hold a billiard cue horizontally and steady, gripping only the tip, with his arm outstretched.

- he could also vault over a billiard table using only his left hand.

- he travelled a thousand miles by sleigh, from Orenburg to Khiva, with only two other people, in one of the coldest winters then on record. His servant was 'a [...] salacious [...] Tartar dwarf named Nazar'.

- though married, Nazar 'lost his heart to an Ursk siren'.

- while on this journey across Asia, his beard snapped off due to frostbite.

- he wrote several bestselling books.

- he rowed from Windsor to Shrewsbury and back again (600 miles), at the age of 13. I don't know how this worked.

- he once carried two ponies under his arms, 'as if they had been cats'.

- his wife, Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed, was a mountaineer and also probably the first ever female film-maker.

- he once twisted a kitchen poker around a friend's neck, as a joke, in the presence of the future King Edward VII.

- he inspired Prince Charles's 60th birthday portrait.

- he was fluent in English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, and Arabic. And was also proficient in Italian.

- he became extremely famous and you could buy Burnaby crockery and playing cards.

- Queen Victoria reportedly fainted on hearing of his death.

- he could also play the cornet.

These facts are all here and/or here and/or in Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game.

IF you take dylan moran to represent millions of teenage girls

2011-04-19T21:59:00.010+01:00

Generalisations about mass popular culture are easy to make. Its consumers aren't really thinking for themselves; they are mindlessly endorsing the culture industry; this industry has no interest in the actual artistic value of its products; etc. etc. But recently, all of these assumptions have apparently been called into question, as millions of teenage girls have decided to stick their necks out and say 'No, Lady Gaga, actually I don't think it's cool that your new album cover is a picture of your head and arms superimposed onto a motorcycle.' Perhaps the negative reaction has been exaggerated in the press a bit, but it still seems to have happened to some extent. And perhaps this is great: maybe Lady Gaga's fans aren't as unthinking as might be assumed; maybe they have been making careful aesthetic judgements about her all along, and only now feel the need to object to anything.

I'm just really not convinced that it makes any sense at all to begin to object to Lady Gaga's incredibly bizarre behaviour now - not at the point when she stoked rumours about being a hermaphrodite to gain publicity, not after that ridiculous crap telephone thing, not when she wore all that meat, but now, when she has made a photoshopped image of her head and arms on a motorcycle. As far as I can see, this is actually one of the least shocking or offensive things she has ever done. If you were ever going to start objecting to Lady Gaga, even if you were one of millions of teenage girls, it should surely have been a long time ago.

If you take Dylan Moran to represent millions of teenage girls, and Bill Bailey to play Lady Gaga, I think this clip sums up the situation pretty well.

Also: I've been doing weird shit with photos for years and have barely offended any teenage girls along the way SO THERE.

it's been a while since i gave anything numbers

2011-04-16T23:22:00.002+01:00

the social network - i liked this. 9.2

space face

2011-04-15T15:44:00.001+01:00

Personally I wasn't particularly surprised to find a photo gallery entitled "Everyday objects that look like celebrities or religious figures" on the Telegraph website. It's pretty much what I expect from them. Also, at least it's not trying to be clever or anything.

So perhaps it's a bit mean-spirited to point out that a cat that looks like a fictional character is neither an everyday OBJECT nor looks like a celebrity or religious figure. It is clear enough what they mean, I suppose. And the story is, after all, HEARTWARMING.

BUT this one raises a serious question which I feel has to be asked:

In 1988 the Viking probe orbiting the planet Mars sent back to Earth this image of a human face in a crater

Where the fuck do the Telegraph writers live?

criticizes, blunders and bores

2011-04-12T21:52:00.002+01:00

Maybe I've just been reading too much Language Log, but on reading this the following phrase struck me as really, really funny.

Detective Lester Freamon, who worked wiretaps like Yo-Yo Ma on a cello.

...I'm not being stupid, am I? Yo-Yo Ma isn't well-known for conducting detailed detective work atop a cello, is he? I don't think he is. And I think that if he did try to do this he would probably do really badly at the detective work. He's not got any detective experience at all, to my knowledge. Plus he may well object to being asked to sit on his cello, which is probably really expensive.

I'm sure, in fact, that Lester Freamon would do a far better job, because although in The Wire he never actually sits on a cello this is unlikely to prove as large a handicap to the task as having no prior police training.

Perhaps I should be interpreting "like" as simply meaning "in the manner of", rather than "with as much skill as". Perhaps Freamon just somehow resembles Yo-Yo Ma, when he [Ma] is working wiretaps. Oh right no.

I am left with only one conclusion. WHAT A POOR ANALOGY. GET WORDS RIGHT MORE.

Finding this funny reminded me of an incident at work today. One of my high school students asked me, just before the end of the lesson: "Can we go now? We are Italian." I was the only one who laughed :-(

LOOK A SMILEY

Japanese Hamlet Rock Opera

2011-04-02T22:50:00.001+01:00

Perhaps it is a shortcoming of my own imaginative powers, but I simply cannot comprehend how anybody could watch this and then make this comment:

I love rock opera's, I love Hamlet. I don't mind JROCK, but I'm not sure about this.

However, I LOVE HIS ACTING!!! of course I don't understand him, but I can see his inner struggle and the pain he is going through on a choice he has to make!!!

krazykittymatt 1 year ago

The extent to which krazykittymatt’s opinions and my own are completely uncorrelated is remarkable. Perhaps a table will help.

krazykittymatt’s ranking	My ranking
1. Hakuei’s acting	1. Hamlet
=2. rock operas	2. rock operas
=2. Hamlet	3. J-rock
4. J-rock	=4. this song/performance as a whole
5. this [song/performance as a whole(?)]	=4. Hakuei’s acting

Crazy. How the anguished young Hakuei’s acting ability could be “LOVED”, when Hamlet is only “loved”, I really don’t know. I also fail to see how it is possible to consider the guy’s performance to be noticeably better than the song he is singing (assuming that this is what krazykittymatt’s ambiguous “this” refers to). Surely, both are terrible.

And how rock operas and Hamlet can both be simply “loved” also eludes me totally. Is krazykittymatt implying that he considers these two things of similar quality, or indeed similar in any way? Is that a legitimate opinion? Why do I feel entitled to say that it isn’t a legitimate opinion? Why do I feel that this matters? Is it over-egging it to say that the whole problem of criticism is summed up in the sentence “I love rock opera’s, I love Hamlet”?

Yes. Sometimes the answer is just yes. I’m still confused though.

list of words with silent letters

2011-03-25T18:53:00.000Z

this is what was printed on the back of my work timetable for next week. clearly, these letters are so silent that they are also invisible.

a visual accompaniment to Leonard Nimoy's cover of 'Where is Love?' from 'Oliver!'

2011-03-24T23:02:00.000Z

you can listen to it here

bad apiarist

2011-03-22T11:39:00.000Z

I am really impressed with the BiblioLabs project; honestly, it's a great idea. But i would re-jig their mission statement slightly, so that it read as follows:

We are engaged in multiple projects (technical and business development) to help find, enhance and market:

(a) important historical books.
(b) the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Illinois State Bee-Keepers' Association (1914).

Then again, bees.

novels which would be harder to take seriously if published with the image from 'Por Primera Vez' by Tino on the cover

2011-03-20T22:13:00.000Z

chat-up techniques that i really hope don't work

2011-03-20T11:52:00.000Z

this one

troubled

2011-03-18T21:50:00.000Z

I am constantly feeling like a pillock for not knowing about things. This evening it was Dee Dee Bridgewater. She is, it would appear, an extremely famous jazz singer, the winner of three Grammys, and—if Google is anything to go by, anyway—the internet’s most frequently searched-for person called ‘Dee Dee’. Even Spotify Free, which I like to imagine is pretty bloody stupid, was able to tell me not only that she is ‘One of the best jazz singers of her generation’, but that she ‘had to move to France to find herself’. Quite why I needed to know this in the very first sentence of her Spotify biography I am not sure, but given my apparent level of knowledge, I am willing to believe that there is in fact a reason and remain eager to discover what this might be.

Her existence became apparent to me this evening via a review of a live concert on The Arts Desk, and this quickly led me to find out as much fact as I could about her most recent album, a tribute to Billie Holiday entitled Eleanora Fagan (1917-1959): To Billie With Love. Doing so, naturally, led me to discover just how limited my knowledge of Billie Holiday was too: not only does the album feature several apparently famous Holiday numbers I’d never heard of before, but I was also forced into discovering that she wrote a number of her own songs, including ‘Lady Sings the Blues’. Maybe you consider not knowing this to be perfectly fair enough, and maybe you don’t; I honestly have absolutely no idea, not only because I have no clue who you are but also because there’s a chance that not everyone considers such facts to be genuinely important. Or also because I have lost all confidence in my ability to determine what facts do and do not fit into what might reasonably be considered a decent rudimentary knowledge of jazz. Not that such a concept really makes much sense anyway. I still felt like I had one though. Until Dee Dee Bridgewater came along.

This was originally going to be about what I actually thought of the album. For what it’s worth, I thought it was great. And the cover of ‘Strange Fruit’ was as good as it could have been, given the scope of the original version, sounding as shocked and breathless as someone who had just heard the song for the first time. Well done Dee Dee Bridgewater.

But do you really want the opinion of someone who hadn't ever heard of Cecil Bridgewater, the hard bop trumpeter to whom Dee Dee Bridgewater was married in the 1970s, until earlier this evening?

phrases which are so convoluted that they look as if they should have some sort of special property, but don’t

2011-03-16T18:25:00.000Z

Chips? No, ta! My Chevrolet had four carps.

Good, rice is fried pancreas.

Cats Buffalo mice badger nag dogs Bunny sheep annoy.

sentences which are not palindromes

2011-03-16T13:41:00.000Z

Dial to get at Abe: Seb on a sail had desserts.

Stressed dahlias an obese bat ate got laid.

Once he had left the bank, Julian was seized by a sudden feeling of guilt.

what do footballers do after they retire?

2011-03-15T14:55:00.000Z

THEY DESIGN PERCUSSION INSTRUMENTS

selected extracts from 'The Inquisitive Bee, and Other Tales', by W. and F. G. Cash

2011-03-14T10:39:00.000Z

'How I wished I had not been a little bee. I would have been contented to have been a little man then, to have protected her; but what am I talking about, an inconstant man is no uncommon thing, but an inconstant bee a novelty.' - 7.6

'And away they went in the carriage, [...] to the great surprise of the by-standers, who never saw such an extraordinary thing since King Arthur ruled the days. Why they should feel so much surprised I cannot tell. What would this country do without wigs?' - 8.2

'I endeavoured to remonstrate with her, but she was inexorable.' - 9.1

read the whole thing, go on

wonderful

2011-03-13T13:45:00.000Z

This article makes me so angry. Mainly this bit:

And yet [a speaker at a conference about the arts] would suggest that Andrew Lloyd Webber's show [The Wizard of Oz] belongs to the world of entertainment and not the arts. No matter that there's an orchestra working away in the pit, or that it's a story laden with contemporary symbolism - greedy bankers, freak weather incidents, the dehumanising effects of industrialisation - or that it is likely to reach a broad audience. It is below the salt.

Now, if two music degrees have taught me anything, it is that I don't know how we classify the arts or if we do it right. Not that I am short of opinions on the subject, though. Perhaps a certain amount of doubt is constructive. As far as my opinion goes generally, I would say this: at Cambridge the thing that annoyed me most about the music faculty was the lack of attention given to non-classical music, and I suppose my slight wariness of the general Toriness of the whole place probably exacerbated my suspicion that there was a certain closeted elitism lurking behind (for example) the music tripos’s bizarre emphasis on counterpoint. Me, I like plenty of music which is ‘classical’, and plenty which is not, and—though I do not think that we should treat both of these ‘categories’ of music in the same way—my opinion of the worth, relevance or quality of music is not affected in the least by its categorisation as either ‘classical’ or ‘not classical’. I try and apply a similar sort of approach to other art forms too.

So I don’t think that blanket dismissal of all of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s work is, in principal, the way to go. As it happens, I think that all his music is terrible, but this is only because it is, and not because he is populist. In other words, I have reached this conclusion about ALW’s (crap) music not because of how I would classify this music, but because of what I actually think of the music. But what Will Gompertz apparently wants us to do is notice the following things about The Wizard of Oz, and then classify—and hence evaluate—the work accordingly:

1. There is an orchestra. This makes it high-brow. Therefore it is ART, and maybe it’s entertainment too, but more importantly it’s ART, because ORCHESTRAS ARE WELL POSH, AND SO IS ART.

2. It is LADEN WITH CONTEMPORARY SYMBOLISM. This makes it clever. Therefore it is ART, because ART is CLEVER, and stuff that is just entertainment PROBABLY ISN’T.

And we should also take heed of the following:

3. It is LIKELY TO REACH A BROAD AUDIENCE. IT IS ALWAYS GOOD WHEN ART DOES THIS. MAYBE IF HIGH-BROW ART HAD PANDERED TO ITS AUDIENCE A BIT MORE IT WOULDN’T HAVE FOUND ITSELF IN SUCH A STICKY MESS.

I don’t particularly want to elaborate on why I think these arguments are completely wrong-headed, because there is not, in my view, any more effective rejoinder than gesticulating wildly at your computer screen and mouthing swear-words. I will only add that, as far as I can see, Mr Gompertz manages to denigrate both ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’, while also misunderstanding the difference between the two (even in his own terms) and simultaneously driving them further apart from each other, which is the opposite of his apparent aim. It’s good to vent.

phrases which are anagrams of each other, rated out of ten and listed alphabetically

2011-03-05T12:05:00.000Z

athletically idle baps – 8.2

cheat hero – 6.8

tone-deaf tutor – 7.5