>The sight of them taking the piss out of the poor bastards lining up for the identity parade thing on that piece of crap that is "Saved for Mondays (c) jane root" is just disgusting.
>
i would love to see in ten years time, a similar show doing a line up to identify the fat bloke in Billy Bragg's Sexuality video.

And Phill Jupiterarse has to grin and bear it.

Apparently Jupiterarse is more than twice as massive as all the other comedians combined, with high gas content.

But...but...but...Mark Steel...Mark...Steel...Good....Why on this?

For the £500?

it was funny. i bet you all watch orrible, wankers.

I saw the last thirty seconds, and the look on Terry Hall's face filled me with sympathy and despair.

And I did watch orrible, and thought it the strongest episode so far. That said, the fact that the only line I laughed at was Ricky Grover saying 'I need a shit.' Whether this says more about me or the show, I'm not sure.

>But...but...but...Mark Steel...Mark...Steel...Good....Why on this?

But...Steel...Mark...Steel...Pompous unfunny socialist windbag...

'That Tony Blair eh? He's like a bloke, erm...You wouldn't like if he was sitting next to you on a bus, would you? Isn't he? Because he'd tell you the bus was lovely when actually it was crap...erm. Thank you and goodnight!'

>But...Steel...Mark...Steel...Pompous unfunny socialist windbag...

*starts thumping him*

Mark Steel has taught me more about everything than any textbook ever will... I never said he was excellently funny...

*more hair pulling*

everyone keeps posting about how bad nmtb is and yet you still seem to watch it. its been on for years, if you dont like it now you never will so do yourselves a favour and dont watch it. i dont know what you expect of it. it doesnt claim to be anything more than it is, just 7 people talking rubbish for half an hour, some of it possibly funny to some people. there is always going to be cheap and cheerful filler like this on tv, and there always has been, even in the 'golden age', whichever age you personally think that is. the problem isnt with programs like buzzcocks and they think its all over, its that there isnt any decent quality programs to go around them

<high court judge>

Who were the two people who weren't Lamarr, Jupitus, Hughes, Hall or Steel?

</high court judge>

It was shit. And it can't be excused because "there are no quality programmes to go around it". Even if there were, would that make the laziness of it acceptable? There's no joy there, they're just going through the motions and collecting the 500 quid. Even, to quote a much maligned example, Changing Rooms is infintely more pleasureable to watch because there's a sense of fun shining through and you can see that the people involved are enjoying themselves, while nmtb seems as if they're just desperate to get the thing out of the way.

I watch NMTB with a numb fascination because I love both music and comedy and I'd really like to see the two combined, please.

I also think Sean Hughes is intermittently excellent, that Phill Jupitus is surprisingly quick witted and that Mark Lamarr's delivery can occasionally be savagely spot on (cf Shooting Stars).

This programme, though, every time I watch it, makes me feel soiled and grisly.

How can such a potent combination go so wrong? Monday night features two other quiz shows which I never miss, both of which are witty, intelligent, often laugh out loud funny, and don't make me feel like I just spent half an hour in the company of some playground bullies repeatedly pushing my head into a shitty basin.

If NMTB had half the fun or vim of Question Of Sport or University Challenge, it would be defensible. It doesn't.

Wow! I can't believe how much I disagree. I don't think any joy shows through Changing Rooms. I think that the presenters and guests on NMTB *do* seem to be enjoying themselves. In fact, if I didn't know any better, I'd say they were still doing it 'cos they have a fine old time, whereas CR seems to me to have to keep "discovering" "personality" builders/decorators/designers to fill the gaps.

If there are faults with NMTB then they are largely caused by the lack of spontaneity on the part of the two team captains. Whereas I've long since given up on those other topical panel-based comedy/quiz shows (with the possible exception of HIGNFY), Buzzcocks still does it for me in a light entertainment sense.

But it's not *really* supposed to be just a comedy show, is it?

Cheerio

<snip>

Well, I suspect it'd be quicker just to agree to differ there.

>But it's not *really* supposed to be just a comedy show, is it?

No, and the main reason I still watch it is because I enjoy the music quiz element. However, with 3 stand up comedians as regulars, and usually 1 as aguest then it's reasonable to expect a funny programme. And if the point of the piss-taking in the ID parade bit isn't comedy, then it truly is inexscusably nasty.

It's not a quiz show when Lamarr lazily slows down the questions in the quickfire round when it looks like Jupitus might win.

That was bloody awful. What's so shameful about just asking some music questions and having people answer them? Or would that require knowledge, insight and enthusiasm being displayed, and blowing everyone's cool?

So it's not all that funny, and it's not a proper quiz. What a great flagship show.

>It's not a quiz show when Lamarr lazily slows down the questions in the quickfire round when it looks like Jupitus might win.

Well, it was a joke, wasn't it? It's really not life and death. It's essentially a panel show, as far as I can tell and, whilst the "TV" one upsets me solely on the basis that the format of the show clearly contradicts the title, I find "Buzzcocks" entertaining (with the caveat above - I cannot understand *why* Hughes is there at all, as he contributes little).

>That was bloody awful. What's so shameful about just asking some music questions and having people answer them? Or would that require knowledge, insight and enthusiasm being displayed, and blowing everyone's cool?

What's the obsession with "cool"? I don't think it sets out to be that, it's simply attempting to be a light entertainment show with some jokes. The guests reflect that. The panel show format is loose enough to allow a quiz element of sorts and some space for the comedians/guests to say funny things. It isn't supposed to be Pop Quiz. You can't really criticise it for having a different format.

>So it's not all that funny, and it's not a proper quiz. What a great flagship show.

Well, as mentioned above, I get more laughs out of NMTB than I do out of 'Orrible and that justifies its position in the schedules to me. So I guess we just disagree. But what about that "Whose Line Is It Anyway?", eh? It's not a proper quiz and the people on it are just making it up! What's wrong with properly acted sketches and a script and everything?

i always think the regulars on buzzcocks look bored out of their skulls. especially Sean Hughes. I love the spontaneous way Phil Jupituss looks down at his desk before delvering a funny line. it's as if it was written down there on a big pad that they carry in before the show.

it looks tired and run down and should be chucked.

orrible - the "what can possibly go wrong now?" "I need a shit" exchange was laugh out loud, but is it called "comedy drama" because there are not enough jokes in it? it's just not that funny. there are good sequences in there. the bit in the pub at the end with all the dog references leading (see what i did there?) to Johnny Vaughan's outburst was great.

Coupling - not a great episode, not that funny, but the mother/daughter punchline was superbly done. but hey, it's eye candy! look that them, they're gorgeous. job's a good'un.

Newsnight is the funniest thing on now, as it descends into self parody.

>So it's not all that funny, and it's not a proper quiz. What a great flagship show.

Bullying teenage girls and members of the public who *can't answer back*. That's reason enough for me to turn off.

Incidentally, who remembers the NME end of year poll that said the person who deserved a smack in the face most of all in the world was (then) 16 year old Billie Piper? What does that say about the NME's readership, that they thought a harmless pop-singing teenage girl needed physically assaulting?

>Bullying teenage girls and members of the public who *can't answer back*. That's reason enough for me to turn off.

when will you stupid fuckwits get it into your heads. they are not 'members of the public' they are paid extras who enjoy the attention!

wankers.

>>Bullying teenage girls and members of the public who *can't answer back*. That's reason enough for me to turn off.
>
>when will you stupid fuckwits get it into your heads.

You need a question mark there - who's stupid now, eh?

>they are not 'members of the public' they are paid extras who enjoy the attention!

That makes no difference at all... the laugh is at 'less famous' people, who happen to have certain sorts of faces.

It's still a pathetic thing to laugh at, especially when you look at Hughes, Lamarr and Jupitus - not exactly oil paintings themselves.

>wankers.

Prick.

>Incidentally, who remembers the NME end of year poll that said the person who deserved a smack in the face most of all in the world was (then) 16 year old Billie Piper? What does that say about the NME's readership, that they thought a harmless pop-singing teenage girl needed physically assaulting?

Well, they *did* ask... SHould have been Charlotte Church.

>That makes no difference at all... the laugh is at 'less famous' people, who happen to have certain sorts of faces.

I'd say the notion of relative fame playing a part in the "guess who" round is a little tenuous, especially considering the mileage they get out of the guests anyway. It's almost certainly a laugh at the expense of the faces of the extras who - as Ollie points out - have been paid to be there.

>It's still a pathetic thing to laugh at, especially when you look at Hughes, Lamarr and Jupitus - not exactly oil paintings themselves.

So, if I fall on a banana skin, I can't laugh at other people who do the same?

"...and just for the audience, here's a clip of talent as represented in an altogether different programme in 1994 - teams, can you identify the talent in this line-up? Is it number one - insecure bully, number two - egomaniac who prefers the sound of his own voice saying nothing of relevance to the sound of his own voice saying something funny, number three - washed-up haven't-done-any-actual-comedy-in-five-years stand-up who got scared when some mouthy scouser with those fucking annoying opinion things once started shouting at him while he was onstage..."

>It was shit. And it can't be excused because "there are no quality programmes to go around it".

its not an excuse for it being shit, its just a filler program thats cheap and cheerful. it attains to be nothing more and yet people think it should be hilarious and say loads about music. the problem is that almost everything else on tv is a filler program too now. the problem isnt the 2 or 3 comedy quiz shows a week, its the 2 or 3 vet shows a night and the 2 or 3 design shows a night and the 2 or 3 cookery shows a night. if the other programs around it were any good then it would be more easily seen for what it was, filler pure and simple. cheap and quick to make so that the money can be spent on good programs. sadly that money is being wasted elsewhere

> Even if there were, would that make the laziness of it acceptable?

its not lazy, its just the sort of show it is. its made on a shoestring, the people involved dont get paid much and its mostly improvised. why would they put masses of effort into something that is meant to be throwaway

>There's no joy there, they're just going through the motions and collecting the 500 quid.

i would disagree with that. they seem to be having a good laugh to me, generally. even the people who are the butt of most of the jokes have a laugh

>Even, to quote a much maligned example, Changing Rooms is infintely more pleasureable to watch because there's a sense of fun shining through and you can see that the people involved are enjoying themselves, while nmtb seems as if they're just desperate to get the thing out of the way.

now youre just talking bollocks

again, im not defending the program, if you like it you like it, if you dont you dont. it just seems a waste of time posting messages every week saying how shit it is. as i said, if all the programs around it (not just before and after but in the schedule in general) were better and the money saved by making these cheap programs was spent better then you would see the program for what it is.

>It's almost certainly a laugh at the expense of the faces of the extras who - as Ollie points out - have been paid to be there.

Well, I certainly enjoy laughing at faces - and some of my favourite laughs have been at the expense of faces. But that round makes me feel uneasy - regardless of whether the extras have been paid. Mocking their faces, while they can't answer back, seems unfair and bullying.

Remember that people can be paid to have just about anything done to them - but that doesn't make it right when those things are done, does it?

>>It's still a pathetic thing to laugh at, especially when you look at Hughes, Lamarr and Jupitus - not exactly oil paintings themselves.
>
>So, if I fall on a banana skin, I can't laugh at other people who do the same?

Of course you can, Steve! I've seen you laughing at other people falling over on banana skins many times, and the look on your face was priceless every time.

The hypocrisy of Lamarr-Hughes-Jupitus is only a minor point, but it all adds to the ugliness of the bullying. Wouldn't be much better if they were all beautiful, mind.

> the people involved dont get paid much and its mostly improvised

Sadly, neither of these is true. (All right, the *guests* don't get paid much. But almost any "spontaneity" is heavily scripted.)

The fact is, most of the weak jokes aren't even spontaneous either, they go over all the questions and video clips beforehand so everyone is given time to think of some hilarious carefully prepared ad-lib. Even Lemmy was clever enough to spot the foulness of this programme and walked out, Sean Hughes looks like he's just trying to keep in pay to feed the cocaine habit his increasingly gaunt and jaded smug face portrays.

There's a usual suspects list of hacks contributing 'additional material' listed on the credits of each programme, which just further display the laziness of the actual comedy value of the show. Mark Lamarr even last night delivered a joke along the lines of 'this band re-did their album cover because it made them look too ugly, now the brail version comes with mittens' which doesn't even make sense! As is obvious, there's no such thing as brail pictures, it isn't even a joke! It just sounds like one, but the audience all guffaw because a celeb said something that seemed to follow the structure of a joke, and they want their moneys worth.

The celeb guests also just seem to be there as a bit of dressing, which Jupitus, Lamarr or Hughes can make a few weak jokes at their expense and the audience will laugh because the celebs are actually there, it will make the jokes seem dangerous and biting, except the celebs don't really give a toss, they're getting some exposure and getting paid for sitting on their arse.

How long is the actual filming? I'd hate to think how many hours of hilarious japery the broadcast edit is cut down from, using only the cream of the crop of the finest jokes and off the cuff witticisms.

Whoever it was who asked why we watch the show if we don't like it is missing the point. Unlike Jim Davidson's Generation Game or Last Of The Summer Wine, this is target marketed at me and people like me. It looks and sounds like the sort of thing I really ought to be watching. And every time, I fall for the trick...

For instance, I sat through the whole of last night's episode because Terry Hall is a living god. He was occasionally allowed to be marvellous, but mainly cut and hacked to fit the format, and in the end looked thoroughly bored. (Like you would when a two second snippet of one of your finest songs was being used repeatedly to turn you into a figure of fun.)

I'd avoid it, if it didn't keep disguising itself as a programme I might like, about a subject that interests me, starring people I'd like to watch. How many times must I be fooled?

What about Mark and Lards Upstairs Downstairs then? Cheap, cheerful and about music.

Anyway, nevermind the Buzzcocks isn't half as bad as They think it's all over.

>For instance, I sat through the whole of last night's episode because Terry Hall is a living god. He was occasionally allowed to be marvellous, but mainly cut and hacked to fit the format, and in the end looked thoroughly bored.

Aw, c'mon. That is exactly what Terry Hall looks like when he's being marvellous, underwhelming, happy, sad, envious, pitying, angry, shamed or mischievous.

I love this whole notion that the comedians involved are sneery, mocking, unfair or bullying. Like you've never seen these acts come back spectacularly against heckling time and time again.

>I love this whole notion that the comedians involved are sneery, mocking, unfair or bullying. Like you've never seen these acts come back spectacularly against heckling time and time again.

I haven't, because I've never seen any of them live. But that's irrelevant - it doesn't stop them being sneery, mocking, unfair and bullying at all.

"See that one on the left? He's looks like Des Lynam... after he's been in a wind tunnel!"

>I haven't, because I've never seen any of them live. But that's irrelevant - it doesn't stop them being sneery, mocking, unfair and bullying at all.

It isn't irrelevant. It's exactly where the comedy of that round derives from, out of the ridiculous cruelty of the whole thing (although it's tacitly acknowledged - by the fact that the people in the line-up are clearly seen to be supressing laughter - that it's all a big joke). If there were no sneering, mocking, unfairness or bullying, there'd be no comedy. Laughing at other people's downfall (in this case, their ridiculous faces). That's all it is. And my point about their live shows is that you would know that it's part of their act.

>"See that one on the left? He's looks like Des Lynam... after he's been in a wind tunnel!"

Sean Hughes: "Number five is probably around the right age to have been in Led Zeppelin. The others are either too young or too old or don't sufficiently resemble the image I have in my mind's eye. I can't particularly remember whether or not he was handsome or otherwise but, no doubt, time has had some detrimental effect upon which I shall not comment, for fear of offending."

Comedy forum: "That's more like it".

>>For instance, I sat through the whole of last night's episode because Terry Hall is a living god. He was occasionally allowed to be marvellous, but mainly cut and hacked to fit the format, and in the end looked thoroughly bored.

Y'know, these people could just say 'no'.

If they haven't seen a couple of episodes beforehand, more fool them if they come out looking like idiots.

>Anyway, nevermind the Buzzcocks isn't half as bad as They think it's all over.

I disagree, I think it is half as bad. But then don't get me started on They think it's all over. It makes nmtb look like the standard bearer for original thought and variety.

The idea that anyone in the ID parade or on the panel is in on the 'joke' is irrelevant. There's still a horrid hollowness to the whole thing, and a stench of misogyny throughout. Quite apart from the delight of "aahahaha, you're not famous" or "aahahahaha, you used to be famous". That's Hughes (deluded novelist of bad novels found in Booksale bargain bins), Jupitus (bitter fat boy literally getting his own back after years of school bullying) and Lamarr (a man who whose knowledge would actually be worth something were he not so downright obnoxious).

I haven't seen it since the detestable Gail Porter episode, but although the prospect of Terry Hall was very enticing, I listened to a Specials compilation and Ultra Modern Nursery Rhymes by Terry Blair & Anouchka instead. Sounds like I was right.

>And my point about their live shows is that you would know that it's part of their act.

As does everyone who takes part in the show, come to think about it.

If you were my mum, I'd understand your objections to the "savage putdowns"(TM), but as you're not, I'm surprised that you're surprised by where the humour derives. My mum knows nothing of the music featured in the show, the previous reputation of Lamarr/Jupitus etc., nor exactly who any of the guests are, so I wouldn't expect her to a) watch or b) understand any of it if she did.

However, I would also argue that, contrary to what others assert here about how much respect is shown for the guests/music, the two captains and Lamarr make much of their personal heroes/favourites during the programme.

Cheerio

Humour need not derive from cruelty to individuals. It can also come from whimsy, irony, self-deprecation and mocking of *characters* and so on and so on.

So Lamarr-Jupitus-Hughes have cruelty as part of their act? Big deal - it doesn't make them funny.

>The idea that anyone in the ID parade or on the panel is in on the 'joke' is irrelevant. There's still a horrid hollowness to the whole thing, and a stench of misogyny throughout.

Where?! Fucking hell. As you just said, you didn't watch it. Presumably, it's misogynist to make fun of that towering example of great womenhood, Gail Porter? The one who posed nude on the cover of FHM? Presumably, had Phil J posed nude on the cover of Cosmo, you think Lamarr would've ignored it, 'cos it's just lads together?

>Quite apart from the delight of "aahahaha, you're not famous" or "aahahahaha, you used to be famous".

Well, this completely passes me by, to be honest. I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Last night's one, for example, had the winner of the International Air Guitarist of the year. There was no "you're not famous, mate" or "you're a sad act, mate" at all.

>That's Hughes (deluded novelist of bad novels found in Booksale bargain bins), Jupitus (bitter fat boy literally getting his own back after years of school bullying) and Lamarr (a man who whose knowledge would actually be worth something were he not so downright obnoxious).

No who's being sneery?

>I haven't seen it since the detestable Gail Porter episode

Oh, Lamarr and Porter are friends - she dequiffed him on the Big Breakfast. I think they share an agent.

, but although the prospect of Terry Hall was very enticing, I listened to a Specials compilation and Ultra Modern Nursery Rhymes by Terry Blair & Anouchka instead. Sounds like I was right.

Oh, does it always have to be "right" and "wrong"?

>Humour need not derive from cruelty to individuals. It can also come from whimsy, irony, self-deprecation

By which you mean self-depreciation.

>and mocking of *characters* and so on and so on.

Well, the show features all that too. All I was pointing out was that the basis of all comedy is one individual laughing at the downfall of another.

>So Lamarr-Jupitus-Hughes have cruelty as part of their act? Big deal - it doesn't make them funny.

No, it doesn't. But the presence of cruelty *in* their act doesn't instantly make them unfunny.

>>Humour need not derive from cruelty to individuals. It can also come from whimsy, irony, self-deprecation
>
>By which you mean self-depreciation.

Why would I want to mis-spell it?

>>and mocking of *characters* and so on and so on.
>
>Well, the show features all that too.

I know it does. Good for it.

>All I was pointing out was that the basis of all comedy is one individual laughing at the downfall of another.

Not true - although a great deal of it is. People can laugh at a phrase like "Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster". I can't see how that juxtaposition of words involves the downfall of an individual. I don't find it funny either, but there you go. A pun is probably a better example - wordplay involves no individuals, let alone misfortune.


>>So Lamarr-Jupitus-Hughes have cruelty as part of their act? Big deal - it doesn't make them funny.
>
>No, it doesn't. But the presence of cruelty *in* their act doesn't instantly make them unfunny.

I agree with that. They manage to be unfunny by other means.

I'm not saying that laughing at the misfortune of others is always terrible and unamusing. I'm just saying that it can tread a fine line between funny and unpleasant. For me, NMTB often crosses that line (e.g. three middle-aged men ganging up to take the piss out of a 16 year-old singer) and so I tend not to watch it.

This NMTB argument has been around a few times before, and nobody has ever come up with a convincing argument in it's favour. All we ever get is "well, *I* like it, so nyeur" or "it isn't MEANT to be a good show!!!" or "it's jusdabiddafun" or "CUNTS! WANKERS! HATS!!111" etc.

Um... I forget my point now. The point is: this should not be *the* flagship comedy programme of BBC2, in their prime comedy slot. It's a tired old format with tired old presenters, it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.

>This NMTB argument has been around a few times before, and nobody has ever come up with a convincing argument in it's favour.

Well I haven't heard a convincing and coherently argued case against it, other that "I don't find it funny, it's sneery, etc".

>All we ever get is "well, *I* like it, so nyeur" or "it isn't MEANT to be a good show!!!" or "it's jusdabiddafun" or "CUNTS! WANKERS! HATS!!111" etc.

Well, that's not what you've got this time. There are clear moments of humour in the show. If they're scripted, so be it, that doesn't stop them from sounding unscripted and being funny. Edith Bowman delivered a line that made me laugh out loud during this week's show.

>Um... I forget my point now. The point is: this should not be *the* flagship comedy programme of BBC2, in their prime comedy slot. It's a tired old format with tired old presenters, it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.

It seems to me that the phrase "it's not funny" is given more credence round these parts than "it is funny". The case always seems to reside on proving it *is* funny rather than it isn't. Go on, you NMTB detractors, PROVE it's not funny.

Cheerio

>it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.

yes it is.







CUNT!

>>it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.
>
>yes it is.
>CUNT!

ollie, go and lie in front of a train

>>>it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.
>>
>>yes it is.
>>CUNT!
>
>ollie, go and lie in front of a train

Not now that he has just figured out how to do capital letters! Hopefully on his next post he'll be able to put them in the right places.

Steve - the 'funny-not funny' arguments are pointless. I wasn't intending to have one of those arguments - I was pointing out that NMTB is a programme that I dislike, and giving reasons for it.

You're just sore because I knew how to spell 'self-deprecation'!

Brrrr. I tried to start an argument about NMTB a few weeks ago, and then some bastards flew some planes into the WTC, and all of a sudden it was like world war 3 round 'ere.

Still, it's all about timing, etc.

For my part, I think the problem with NMTB is that it's just mediocre. A _good_ comedy programme about music - that would be brilliant. A space-filling one like this - a wasted opportunity.

Mark Lamarr's still great on radio 2, though.

>>The idea that anyone in the ID parade or on the panel is in on the 'joke' is irrelevant. There's still a horrid hollowness to the whole thing, and a stench of misogyny throughout.
>
>Where?! Fucking hell. As you just said, you didn't watch it.

Not last night. God knows, I gave it enough chances for its first two years or so. How many more episodes should I suffer through?

>Presumably, it's misogynist to make fun of that towering example of great womenhood, Gail Porter? The one who posed nude on the cover of FHM?

I cited the example of Gail Porter because the jokes at her expense were witless and predictable. And frankly, misogynist. What - because she was on the cover of FHM, she's worthless? I can't stand Gail Porter, myself, but I still found it shameful, nasty stuff to watch. No matter that Sean Hughes can be obsessed with children's TV presenters like Philippa Forrester (impossible to read an interview with him a few years back without him drooling over her). If they don't like Gail Porter, don't cunting well have her on the show. Same goes for Billie Piper or (come to that) erstwhile members of Five or Westlife. It all comes down to: look at pop stars and TV presenters, aren't they image-obsessed and worthless? Whereas the dull indie crowd Hughes fellates are just as image-conscious.

>Presumably, had Phil J posed nude on the cover of Cosmo, you think Lamarr would've ignored it, 'cos it's just lads together?

Your fantasy would not happen. And anyway, a lot of the show is bitter and ugly regulars who think they're funny throwing shit at people who are (for better or worse) popular.

>>Quite apart from the delight of "aahahaha, you're not famous" or "aahahahaha, you used to be famous".
>
>Well, this completely passes me by, to be honest. I think you're seeing things that aren't there.

Well, again, I'm referring to the 30-odd episodes I watched before I gave up. I seem to remember the ID parade involving Jay Aston out of Bucks Fizz included hilarious comparisons with prostitutes. Are you still laughing, Steve?

>>That's Hughes (deluded novelist of bad novels found in Booksale bargain bins), Jupitus (bitter fat boy literally getting his own back after years of school bullying) and Lamarr (a man who whose knowledge would actually be worth something were he not so downright obnoxious).
>
>No who's being sneery?

I am, and make no apologies for it. About bloody time someone said it.

>>I haven't seen it since the detestable Gail Porter episode
>
>Oh, Lamarr and Porter are friends - she dequiffed him on the Big Breakfast. I think they share an agent.

Doesn't make any difference. Still contrived to make "good telly", wasn't it? Was that why it was repeated so bloody often?

>, but although the prospect of Terry Hall was very enticing, I listened to a Specials compilation and Ultra Modern Nursery Rhymes by Terry Blair & Anouchka instead. Sounds like I was right.
>
>Oh, does it always have to be "right" and "wrong"?

Funny how you never say that when you consider you've had the last word...

>>it's not primarily a comedy programme and it's not bloody funny.
>
>yes it is.
>

>CUNT!

This forum used to have interesting discussions. Then people like you turned up, ollie.

and what exactly does that mean? people with an understanding of irony perhaps.

Been here before:

--------------------------------------------

EDINBURGH NIGHTS - WITH MARK LAMARR
Venue 57 - BBC Scotland, Studio One, 5 Queen Street Tickets 565 1835
A series of live BBC2 shows introduced by Mark Lamarr. Special guests throughout the series will include an ageing actor, a washed-up 70s children's entertainer and a teenaged female pop star, who will turn up at the studios, good as gold, thankful for the work, only to find themselves confused and floundering as Lamarr insults and belittles them to their faces with his customary unmatched totally pre-scripted wit. Helping to jolly the proceedings along and join in with the self-serving slanging will be Phill Jupitus, Sean Locke, and anybody else with a sneery South London accent and a tendency to tell stories about how friendly they were with Ian Dury.

---------------------------------------------

Or indeed:

------------------------------------------------

DITCH THE LOSERS
The Unpleasance, Fuck-You Lane Myhouseisinorderville Tickets 556 2987
What better possible way could there be to get ahead in the media than to deliberately tap into the one facet of human nature which really shouldn't be used for the purposes of entertainment. Explore the harmless value of gleefully bullying the weak or powerless for nasty spiteful ends in this innovative new game show copied off some other ones.
This Week: Five child abuse survivors tell their stories in sillouette - the audience must vote on which of them has the least heart-rendering tale and then shove them into a gunk tank.

---------------------------------------------

Take one step back. Look at the media as a whole. Note how one tiny bit of lazy unpleasantness affects the whole shooting match in some way. Detect insidious changes of attitude in general rather than whether x is better than y. Think ahead. Learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.

Or don't. Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...
Who cares, eh? Nothing will change. Carve your niche. Lucky you for being so happy with the way things are.

Ask yourself why you're arguing so passionately though.

>EDINBURGH NIGHTS - WITH MARK LAMARR
>Venue 57 - BBC Scotland, Studio One, 5 Queen Street Tickets 565 1835
>A series of live BBC2 shows introduced by Mark Lamarr. Special guests throughout the series will include an ageing actor, a washed-up 70s children's entertainer and a teenaged female pop star, who will turn up at the studios, good as gold, thankful for the work, only to find themselves confused and floundering as Lamarr insults and belittles them to their faces with his customary unmatched totally pre-scripted wit. Helping to jolly the proceedings along and join in with the self-serving slanging will be Phill Jupitus, Sean Locke, and anybody else with a sneery South London accent and a tendency to tell stories about how friendly they were with Ian Dury.

will someone tell me even one moment in last nights show when a guest was insulted or belittled. it's harmless banter. if anyone could be expected to have the piss ripped out of them it's the world champion air guitarist, but as steve berry said, not only was he not insulted, he was clearly delighted to get on national tv and behave like a prat. i'm not saying people should find it funny, i'm just amazed any could be offended by it.

let me give you an example you might understand. when Eric Morecambe took the piss out of Des O'Connor's singing, Des didn't go off crying about how insulted he felt.


>Take one step back. Look at the media as a whole. Note how one tiny bit of lazy unpleasantness affects the whole shooting match in some way. Detect insidious changes of attitude in general rather than whether x is better than y. Think ahead. Learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.

Um...what?

i am on a different computer

>will someone tell me even one moment in last nights show when a guest was insulted or belittled. it's harmless banter.

"What about when you said 'every nigger should be chopped up and left with nothing but fucking stumps' - what do you have to say about that?"

"Well it was just harmless banter, Martin"

My objection to NMTB (and also HIGNFY, these last few years) is that it has so many very obvious cuts in it that each episode appears to have been constructed from 1 week's worth of filming. Which is not the essence of lively, spontaneous comedy - yet that is what the show is supposed to be, if I haven't misunderstood its symbolist depths.

I challenge the programme's makers to perform a "live" edition on that bit of grass near Parliament where Daisy Donovan used to do her hilarious interviews, with Big Ben in shot constantly. Then we'll see.

>i am on a different computer

thank god, i thought i'd had an episode.

>let me give you an example you might understand.

Might I just.

>when Eric Morecambe took the piss out of Des O'Connor's singing, Des didn't go off crying about how insulted he felt.

But when Eric Morcambe took the piss out of Des O'Connor he wasn't doing so to fit into some insidious sneering media climate, enticing cheap audience laughs by dissing people less 'successful' than himself. He did so as part of an in-character running joke involving someone who was at least as popular (if not moreso in TV terms) - and probably had much the same audience. Also, the jokes and routines were *funny* (more to the point - there were actual jokes involved, rather than a stream of half-jokes where the emarrassment over a misfired gag seems to get as much audience appreciation as a good one - seemingly a staple of NMTB for years).

Moreover, when O'Connor appeared on Morcambe & Wise to participate in the joke it was part of an equal-handed scripted routine - Eric Morcambe didn't get together with Eddie Braben in a Soho winebar to come up with a load of spite-ridden scripted ad-libs and then ensure dear old Des was left floundering with no scripted retorts, allowing the audience to giggle at what a cunt he was.

In other words there's really no comparison. None whatsoever. It's a ridiculous analogy.

>In other words there's really no comparison. None whatsoever. It's a ridiculous analogy.
>
also, Des's career was given a mighty boost by his self deprecating/depreciating/* appearances.


and he was allowed to speak.

*is this the rigth thread for spelling practice/practise?

>Take one step back. Look at the media as a whole. Note how one tiny bit of lazy unpleasantness affects the whole shooting match in some way.

This is utter nonsense. You can't protract one show or one incident and make it exemplary. "The media as a whole" affected by NMTB? Oh yes, The Guardian's really gone downhill lately, as has Radio 3 and BBH. What's going on here, some sort of lazy "three's a trend" rule adopted by the likes of the Evening Standard? "The media" is a whole load of people working according to different personalities and different agendas. There is no didactic attitude permeating everything.

>Detect insidious changes of attitude in general

Even when they're not there. I find these "call to arms" increasingly narrow-minded and shiftless.

>Think ahead. Learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.
>
>Or don't. Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...
>Who cares, eh? Nothing will change. Carve your niche. Lucky you for being so happy with the way things are.
>
>Ask yourself why you're arguing so passionately though.

No, I won't, thanks. I'll just think for myself. How kind of you, however, to condescend to bestow your wisdom, insight and instructions on us.

I like the bit when they pretend to play instruments. ;)

BTW Joe - I was initially impressed with your argument for the deterioration of standards on TV, but after thinking about it for about... 3 seconds, I realised that nah, it's only some shitty quiz that students watch because they know no better and it's 'cool'.

If you want to harp on about declining standards in telly, just watch a couple of episodes of the incredibly nasty Temptation Island

>If you want to harp on about declining standards in telly, just watch a couple of episodes of the incredibly nasty Temptation Island

Which even Steve didn't like (Broadcast, a fortnight ago). The old Channel 4 would never have involved itself.....etc. blah.

I think NMTB illustrates, along with The Weakest Link and all reality TV formats, that what viewers apparently seem to want is people being unpleasant to each other. But whereas the confrontational element of great TV comes out of innocuous formats (Peter Cook being rude to Zsa Zsa Gabor on the Eamonn Andrews Show, the various Frost On Friday bits, and yes, the cosy but warm and cheerful Des-baiting on Morecambe & Wise), all of these programmes contrive nastiness and rudeness for its own sake, hoping for plenty of water-cooler moments of its own. Such is TV circa 2001. And it is not entertaining.

>Such is TV circa 2001. And it is not entertaining.

Can I say 'schadenfreude' to sum it up? I'va always wanted to type that. I can? Hooray!

I for one would be glad to see a couple of "fresh new" TV formats right now that don't involve selecting one person from a pool of many.

Spotting that engine of watercooler gossip ("I wanted Sharon to win" "No! Sharon had bad teeth) is becoming increasingly tiresome.

Perfect Match, Soapstars, Pop Idol, Model Behaviour, Weakest Link, Temptation Island...

*yawn*

(Yes, I liked Big Brother, but come on...)

>>If you want to harp on about declining standards in telly, just watch a couple of episodes of the incredibly nasty Temptation Island
>
>Which even Steve didn't like (Broadcast, a fortnight ago). The old Channel 4 would never have involved itself.....etc. blah.

Ooh, I'm quite chuffed someone other than my mum read that piece. Unfortunately, it was subbed to bits, particularly the last sentence, and the standfirst. The whole intent of what I wrote was to illuminate the motivation behind the MOTPs who enrol on these reality shows, not to question the quality of the production of each. It was essentially about the people on the shows, and my attitude towards them, not about my attitude to the shows. I felt quite aggrieved that this was lost by selective editing.

For the record, no, I'm not a fan of 'Temptation Island' but not due to moral objections to "cruelty" and so on. Frankly, any couple willing to subject themselves to that experience immediately renders useless the platitudinal excuses ("we want to test our loyalty", "I've never been faithful until now") on account of the fact that they're on a free holiday and they're fully aware they're on telly (a game show, no less). They don't deserve our sympathy. I, therefore, find it impossible to engage with the "characters" in the way that I can when watching the CBBC show, 'DIY.tv'.

The final sentence of my piece in Broadcast initially attempted to sum this up in terms of who'd be more likely to have a future in television, the kids who'd got together and created telly versus the adults who'd been split apart and appeared on telly. I think I went over my 120 word limit, though, so it was cut down to something about learning from the experience.

The introductory standfirst, however, explicitly stated that I disliked 'Temptation Island'. Regardless of whether that's true or not, it's not the sort of thing that's particularly "on message" to have attributed on my name. So I was a bit annoyed about that.

For example; I can't fucking stand that gobshite Manc bitch on 'Lost' who can't fucking open her fucking gash of a mouth without some fucking obscenity falling from it, the fucking fuck. However, I think it's a great, compulsive show. And I really do, I'm not just saying that!

Cheerio

I've just read that Justin guy's post; I remember specifically, in an issue of Select dedicated to sex, they asked Sean Hughes who he fancied. He said something along the lines of "Phillipa Forrester's quite nice, but she's a kid's TV presenter - it's not gonna be mad sex is it?". It might seem a small point, but you're distorting facts to make your point.

>self deprecating/depreciating/* appearances.

>*is this the rigth thread for spelling practice/practise?

Probably not, but as I have no defensible opinions and therefore never get to post unless it's on a linguistic topic:

Deprecate is a transitive verb meaning to denigrate or insult.

Depreciate is an intransitive verb meaning to decrease in value.

Therefore it's not a question of a difference in meaning, it's a question of the fact that 'self-depreciate' doesn't make grammatical sense and doesn't actually exist.

HTH

>Therefore it's not a question of a difference in meaning, it's a question of the fact that 'self-depreciate' doesn't make grammatical sense and doesn't actually exist.

Rollocks. OED: The distinction between self-deprecate and self-depreciate has been almost wholly eroded by careless writers and speakers. Deprecate means to disapprove of, whereas depreciate means to belittle. The confusion is most often found when self-deprecating is used instead of self-depreciating.

before we drown in semantic spume, here's the original quote -

"Humour need not derive from cruelty to individuals. It can also come from whimsy, irony, self-deprecation and mocking of *characters* and so on and so on. "

Here's the OED definition of self-deprecating (and derivatives) -

adjective: modest about or critical of oneself, especially humorously so: self-deprecating jokes.

—DERIVATIVES
self-deprecatingly - adverb
self-deprecation - noun
self-deprecatory - adjective


so, you're right that people confuse the two, but you were wrong to correct Jessica, who used the word correctly.

glad that's cleared up...

THE OED IS NOT the best place to find current, accurate information about English usage, spelling, or pronunciation. Because it tries to be descriptive (how the word has been used) rather than prescriptive (how the word should be used), the OED intentionally includes obsolete or other non-standard information.

Deprecate means to deplore something, depreciate means to belittle something or to treat it as unimportant. However, self-deprecating, in the sense 'disparaging oneself', 'modestly understating one's own abilities' has become firmly established, although some people deprecate this usage.

i don't wish to sound flippant, but you quoted from the very same source, all of two posts ago. so i assumed it would be relevant.

"Deprecate means to deplore something, depreciate means to belittle something or to treat it as unimportant. However, self-deprecating, in the sense 'disparaging oneself', 'modestly understating one's own abilities' has become firmly established, although some people deprecate this usage."

mainly because depreciation is more widely associated with economics gcses and accountants and the like. language evolves, and that's a GOOD thing. usually. in this case, anyway. i reckon. gjhgdadnws.

So once again, Steve Berry steers the course of an argument that he clearly feels uncomfortable with into an altogether 'safer' unrelated area. Hmm.

>i don't wish to sound flippant, but you quoted from the very same source, all of two posts ago. so i assumed it would be relevant.

It is. I quoted from an introductory section on usage. The other two lines above are also quotes, one from the OED (about how the OED is not intended to be definitive) and the other from an amusing note in an English magazine online.

My point would be that the dictionary definitions in the OED have to be read in the context of what the OED is for and what it does. Quoting definitions from the OED doesn't bang the nail of final proof into the coffin of argument and therefore seal up the cadaver of dispute for all eternity.

"Self-deprecating" is a misuse that has become accepted through - ahem - laziness (at least, unwillingness to challenge it). I rather gathered we were against accepted patterns of thought 'round these parts. There are a myriad of other examples.

Cheerio

>So once again, Steve Berry steers the course of an argument that he clearly feels uncomfortable with into an altogether 'safer' unrelated area. Hmm.

Ah, but that's what you're *supposed* to think!

>"Self-deprecating" is a misuse that has become accepted through - ahem - laziness (at least, unwillingness to challenge it). I rather gathered we were against accepted patterns of thought 'round these parts. There are a myriad of other examples.

indeed there are, but where do you draw the line? frankly, if it's made it's way into the OED, i'd suggest it's time to move on...

so, never mind the buzzcocks, eh? absolutely fucking awful - as hackneyed, formulaic, and stale as question of sport, but with about half the jokes. and no sue barker.

case closed, your honour.

>so, never mind the buzzcocks, eh? absolutely fucking awful - as hackneyed, formulaic, and stale as question of sport, but with about half the jokes. and no sue barker.
>
>case closed, your honour.

Damn, caught me unawares!

>Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...

Is that a Magic Roundabout quote? I know i recognise it from somewhere.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion.

>>Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...
>
>Is that a Magic Roundabout quote? I know i recognise it from somewhere.
>
>Sorry to interrupt the discussion.

Sounds like W H Auden

>>>Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...
>>
>>Is that a Magic Roundabout quote? I know i recognise it from somewhere.
>>
>>Sorry to interrupt the discussion.
>
>Sounds like W H Auden
>

It's the Magic Roundabout.


So, Never Mind The Buzzcocks...

>>>>Man the lifeboats, ban the bomb... Vote conservative, keep off the grass...
>>>
>>>Is that a Magic Roundabout quote? I know i recognise it from somewhere.
>>>
>>>Sorry to interrupt the discussion.
>>
>>Sounds like W H Auden
>>
>
>It's the Magic Roundabout.

Dougal and the Blue Cat, specifically.

>So, Never Mind The Buzzcocks...

You know, nobody ever did tell me who the two guests who aren't Mark Steel or Terry Hall are..

Yeah, it's not just Buzzcocks, it's just part of the whole problem, it's just the teen aimed equivalent of the whole platform. Just the music tinged version of the same show that goes out under the title of They Think It's All Over - with a faint hint of sport for the lager lout and Have I Got News For You - aimed at the droves of middle class people convinced they're above the common man because they laugh at jokes about Jeffrey Archer taking legal action and anything ending with "So no change there then?" read by Angus Deayton from an auto-cue.

These are just the flagship shows of the genre that have many other variations in apparent theme, but not in style and delivery. They all just seem like something that is knocked together to keep a few celebs in pay, fill up an empty schedule, just stick a couple of script writers behind the scenes to feed them the odd line every now and again, pay some famous face to sit next to them so they can milk some insults out of them if the comedy aspect is so sparse that it actually turns into a proper quiz show temporarily, and carry on year after year.

A friend only yesterday morning was telling me how much he hates Nick Hancock, beginning a diatribe about how crap he is. I interrupted and inevitably discovered his entire opinion stemmed from seeing him on They Think It's All Over, and if my experience of him had been only of that show, I would probably think he was a talentless cunt too. I told him that he use to be a good stand-up, but eventually succumbed to the BBC establishment, and what I imagined happened was he could get fat and lazy and just have to turn up for filming and have a nice script of jokes written for him by someone else, and receive a large fee he could never have earned slogging away doing his stand up career and having to slave over a typewriter every night writing stuff himself. And it's a very tempting deal, my friend even become totally placid about Hancock and agreed that this is probably what he would do himself. So you can see both sides of the coin.

It's very reminiscent of the Python 'It's a Living' sketch, it's not the fact that the show isn't funny, it's the fact that the show isn't necessary, and the people involved just turn up for it week after week to keep themselves in pay, give themselves some exposure, let people know they are still alive. Buzzcocks, TheyThinkIt'sAllOver and HaveIGotNewsForYou are all equally pointless and unnecessary as programmes, but so are the attitudes of the people on them. They all feel like they really don't have to be there, but they always are, and it shows.

The 'sneery' aspect is probably the main draw of Buzzcocks, but you can tell Lamarr goes backstage after the show and has a drink with the guests telling them how it's all just a joke, safe in the knowledge that only his sneering actually gets broadcast, his fraternising and apologies won't. Thus he is the winner on both counts. But I still don't find it exciting and dangerous that he's payed someone to sit in front of him (in full knowledge of what he's like on-camera and what the show is about) and recieve some snide remarks, with 2 cackling lapdogs and an audience there. It's not like they are going to get upset all that much, and even if they did, or retalliated, I'm sure each show is edited to buggery, therefore rendering anything actually interesting that might happen easily removed. I really don't think anybody could have gotten that upset from what I've seen, though I'm sure there will be examples in the unbroadcast material. Though I don't think it has really hurt anybody, the reliance on sneering on the programme, and the way it seems to be the entire flavour and draw of the show is far more disturbing I think. Stewart Lee poured contempt upon Gail Porter and her talentless opportunism, and then got on to sticking his hand up a puppet and shouting "Egg! Egg! Egg!" in a funny voice, Lamarr poured contempt upon Gail Porter and her talentless opportunism and then moved on to doing the same to another paid guest.

> So once again, Steve Berry steers the course of an argument that he clearly feels uncomfortable with into an altogether 'safer' unrelated area. Hmm.

And once again you prove what a sneering wanker you can be. I5t's strange how those things go hand in hand and it's a shame because sometimes you both have things of worth to say.

Tim_E-The other two guests were Kevin Simm from Liberty and Edith somebody from MTV.

I used to think Nick Hancock was good-then I found he used to be a P.E teacher

"but you can tell Lamarr goes backstage after the show and has a drink with the guests telling them how it's all just a joke, safe in the knowledge that only his sneering actually gets broadcast, his fraternising and apologies won't. Thus he is the winner on both counts."

You surprise me. I imagined that Lamarr had his own dressing room, met the "guests" briefly in the corridor walking into the studio, berated them wildly during the unendurable number of "technical breakdowns", and eventually strode off, not speaking or even seeing them afterwards.

The way you tell it, he sounds like an approximately decent bloke, under the right lighting conditions. By TV standards.

>And once again you prove what a sneering wanker you can be. I5t's strange how those things go hand in hand and it's a shame because sometimes you both have things of worth to say.

Not me, mate. I never do.

Oh, I don't know, Steve, it's quite nice when you say "Cheerio". Very warm and friendly. Spread a little happiness, and all that.
TJ, on the other hand, is just about the most self-righteous, head-up-his-own-arse contributor to this forum. I wouldn't say he sneers that much, mind.

Hey Steve, it's working!! Social glue, 'on-message', network etc. Nice one.

'Nurse Truffaut', if you're in a position to further his career, he might even buy you a Red Bull!

At least TJ believes in what he says. That's worth a lot more than a few insincere platitudes in my book.

(Yes, yes, I am a sneering cunt etc, zzzzzzzzz.....)

I heartily agree with everything Steven said in his last post, especially the bit about Stewart Lee, which had me giggling like a fool. Not everyone ignored that one, Steven.

I was about to overlook Steven's last post, since it looked like all of his posts, with no punctuation and paragraphing going on forever and ever and ever getting more and more wound up until he froths at the mouth and falls over.

"He's baaaaaack!" I thought.

But I agree with Ewar. It was great. Nail hit squarely on head. I laughed lots.

Big shout out etc.

[Sarcastic steretyping snipped]

>At least TJ believes in what he says.

And I don't?

steve berry is a cunt

>steve berry is a cunt

Nice post Anonymous. It's a shame your real identity is blatently obvious, you silly bugger!

Anyway, back to TJ. What a spunkmeister!
At least he believes in what he says, you say?
So did the Nazis. Didn't make them right, mind.

And so yet another thread ends up with some bandwagon-jumping remedials emerging from the woodwork to hurl some (supposedly) timely abuse at all and sundry. All terribly exciting.

'Paul' - very interesting how we only ever see your name on here if the subject is throwing dung at TJ.

Just like to add another vote to Steven's post, which was top-notch.

>[Sarcastic steretyping snipped]

OED: steretype - to callously misrepresent someone who tends to vigorously defend paucity of ideas and widespread inanity at their workplace. Often mistakenly confused with "stereotype" by illiterates.

>Anyway, back to TJ. What a spunkmeister!
>At least he believes in what he says, you say?
>So did the Nazis. Didn't make them right, mind.

(rings the "Nazi Comparison In A Debate" bell)

>>[Sarcastic steretyping snipped]
>
>OED: steretype - to callously misrepresent someone who tends to vigorously defend paucity of ideas and widespread inanity at their workplace. Often mistakenly confused with "stereotype" by illiterates.

I would like to take this opportunity to a) refute the idea that I have ever defended paucity of ideas or widespread inanity - as I have always *countered accusations* of such, and b) express astonishment at the levels of pedantry that sometimes crop up on this list.

See, I can do irony.

>
>See, I can do irony.

Steve, I've got a load of shirts if you're interested. Can you put them on hangers when you've finished?

Oh,sod it. Let's all just sing the theme to "Suddenly Susan"....

# Well, I don't tell jokes...#
(claps hands)
Come on, everyone, join in!

I believe this is what happened at last night's meeting between London Underground and the rail unions.

> Oh,sod it. Let's all just sing the theme to "Suddenly Susan"....
>
> # Well, I don't tell jokes...#
> (claps hands)
>
> Come on, everyone, join in!

>At least he believes in what he says, you say?
>So did the Nazis. Didn't make them right, mind.

Bloody did.