About bloody time...

I just saw the bit with Archer - excellent stuff.

Not to mention Ringo's great drumming on the Long Medley on Abbey Road. My dad (a drummer) rated him, so there, comedy writers with no imagination.

Now, if only they'd mentioned Ringo's performance as Uncle Ernie in the London Symphony Orchestra version of Tommy (1972), which was terrifying to my infant ears, but may well have just been rotten. Confirm, someone. The show/recording also featured Stone The Crows' Maggie Bell as Tommy's mum, Richard Harris as the psychiatrist and Sandy Denny as the nurse at Tommy's birth. Who, as a review of a reissued recording reminded me, had just four lines ("It's a boy, Mrs. Walker, it's a boy" x2).

I shouted "That's exactly the point, twat!" at the TV when Angus made that last comment.

Also, while we're at it, what's the fashionable short version of the name Angus?

There was a good Rich Hall moment, though. When he did the "wait a second..." double-take after noting that Bin Laden looked like Cat Stephens. It wasn't much by itself but it hinted at a whole stream of hysterical rambling that he would have done if it was just him and an audience. "Morning has broken... get on the damn plane!"

I thought Merton was quite good in places as well.

>Not to mention Ringo's great drumming on the Long Medley on Abbey Road.

Oh, balls to that! The man himself practically dishoned it in interviews. He's very anti-drum solos (one of the many wonderful things about him, besides Thomas the Tank Engine.)

By the way, I don't think Rain is much to write home about either, possibly due to the fact that the backing track is slowed down so much.

Ringo's best work is in things like Strawberry Fields. Well worth getting the Anthology 2 CD just for all those mixes of the takes that went into the final track. Keith Moon is often credited with introducing that particular style of playing to rock music, lots of fills and feel, but Ringo was definitely first.

"The original and best," just like Cornflakes.

>Ringo's best work is in things like Strawberry Fields. Well worth getting the Anthology 2 CD just for all those mixes of the takes that went into the final track

You'd be better off getting yourself down to Camden Market of a Saturday - there's usually a stupidly-good quality bootleg of all the demos and about ten seperate takes/overdub sessions on some stall or other - the proto-drum n'bass remake (remix 25) will blow your socks in the air. This backing track was also slowed down for the released version.

Cran...berry...sauce...

"RAIN" (Lennon/McCartney)
Generally agreed to be The Beatles finest B-side, Lennon's RAIN expresses the vibrant lucidity of a benign LSD experience. However, the weather imagery would be banal were it solely metaphorical. What alters this is the track's sheer sonic presence - an attempt to convey the lustrous weight of the world as it can appear to those under the drug's influence. Lennon's "rain" and "sun" are physical phenomena experienced in a condition of heightened consciousness, the record portraying a state of mind in which one is peacefully at home in an integrated universe(as distinct from those who only see disparate elements to be manipulated or feared). As such, RAIN is the first rock song to draw an "us and them" line between the childen of Leary's psychedelic revolution and the supposedly unknowing materialism of the parental culture. Here, the post-war "generation gap" acquires a philosophical significance which would soon seize the imagination of Western youth.

The Beatles created the sense of weight and depth they achieved in RAIN by recording the basic track at a faster tempo and then slowing it down(probably by a tone) so as to alter the frequencies of their instruments. The result of sixteen hours of careful bouncing down and overdubbing, this clangorously saturated texture resonates around McCartney's bass, mixed large and played high in the style he had begun to explore in the final tracks for Rubber Soul. Above this, varispeeded and multitracked vocals clash symbolically as the guitars ring out C major against an unyielding G, a variation of the similar effect in IF I NEEDED SOMEONE.

Instrumentally, the twin focuses of RAIN are Starr's superb soloistic drumming(which he reckons to be his finest recorded performance), and McCartney's high-register bass-line, sometimes so inventive that it threatens to overwhelm the track. With its density of sound and intuitive playing, RAIN is a cross between the clipped discipline of pop and the heavily amplified, improvisatory sound of rock - a genre, which, in step with the acid counterculture was to emerge in 1967-8. More significant for The Beatles' own style was an effect used in the fade-out, where the opening lines of the song are spooled backwards, a device, like varispeeding, discovered while playing with the tape loops made for TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS. Suiting the sense of RAIN by echoing the lyric's mystic indifference to the phenomenal world, this backwards effect was for a while, applied to almost everything the group recorded.

-Ian MacDonald

You see, I never understood the criticisms of Ringo's drumming.

Listen to tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Hey Jude... an absolute tour de force. To my mind he was always a powerful and innovative drummer.


Well, they never took drugs in front of me. Occasionally they'd all go off to the toilet, come back, wreathed in smiles, and then straight back to work...

Of course, the feedback at the beginning of I Feel Fine was a complete accident...

>Well, they never took drugs in front of me. Occasionally they'd all go off to the toilet, come back, wreathed in smiles, and then straight back to work...

Sometimes they'd sit around on the studio floor injecting themselves, or smoking vast hand-rolled cigarettes. And once in a while, John would lie there, waving his arms and legs and trying to rip his own eyes out, screaming "But I'm a tree, why have I got eyes?" But as for drugs, no. Not my boys.

Are they going to repeat that nice, gentle-but-fascinating three part programme he did about music? Presumably only when he dies. Come on, Sir George, do us all a favour! You're deaf now, anyway!

For a genuine incident when George Martin was confronted with Lennon's drug-taking, see the Anthology video where he relates the tale of what happened on 21st March 1967.

"We went up to the roof of Abbey Road and John was saying,"...look at the stars, George - aren't they fantastic?" And of course, to him, they must have been especially fantastic - just looked like ordinary stars to me..."

never mind Ringo's drumming, what about George Harrison's guitar playing? I refer you to their version of Chuck Berry's Roll over beethoven! fucking hell, was he wearing gloves?

but the joke on HIGNFY - maybe be better if it was "the most horrendous noise to come out a cavern since Pete Best's fans screaming, causing Paul and John to later get Brian Epstein to sack him from the band because they were jealous of his good looks. A sacking which led to his subsequent suicide attempt, at missing out on global fame and huge wealth"

Might not have been funny, but more truthful.

Ringo's best performance is She Said She Said - fact!

>never mind Ringo's drumming, what about George Harrison's guitar playing? I refer you to their version of Chuck Berry's Roll over beethoven! fucking hell, was he wearing gloves?

Don't leap to conclusions. Sometimes (even early on) John and Paul tried to do the solos, with varying success. For example, You Can't Do That is one of John's efforts, and is pretty good. Paul was generally shite.

Also, it is sometimes cold in Liverpool so George may well have been wearing gloves and we shouldn't just him harshly for that. He is a gear fab bloke and name drops the Rutles several times in the Anthology book.

Another example of this instrument-swapping confusion is the fact that Why Don't We Do It In The Road? has a really good hand-clap-and-drums introduction, and I used to think it was a great example of what Ringo could do with just a few seconds of tape to fill, but that entire track was apparently all Paul. (Hence the shitty slide guitar.)

>For a genuine incident when George Martin was confronted with Lennon's drug-taking, see the Anthology video where he relates the tale of what happened on 21st March 1967.
>
>"We went up to the roof of Abbey Road and John was saying,"...look at the stars, George - aren't they fantastic?" And of course, to him, they must have been especially fantastic - just looked like ordinary stars to me..."

He reminds me now of Hugh the old man from Armando's shows.

"In those days there were no 24-bit hard disk recorders. We had to do everything on ADAT. Everything on 'Pepper' is just 16-bit 44.1 Khz. You've got to understand, rationing had only recently ended. There was a shortage of bits. Pink Floyd had to record their first album with only one bit, so there were only two sounds on the whole album: one and naught."

thank god no one's posted this yet.

http://www.dannybaker.force9.co.uk/ringoe.ram

"Why Don't We Do It In The Road?"

I thought it was Paul and Ringo, and John was annoyed that he wasn't asked to play on such a ridiculous track.

>"Why Don't We Do It In The Road?"
McCARTNEY: vocals, acoustic guitar, piano, lead guitar, bass, handclaps
STARR: drums, handclaps

In the scrambled final days of recording for The White Album, McCartney slipped into Studio 1 while Lennon and Harrison were supervising mixes in Studio 2 and taped this raucously stylised D blues, asking Starr to drum on it. With its arch simplicity, confrontational vocal, and explicit reference to contercultural street theatre, the track was Conceptual Art of precisely the kind Lennon liked and twelve years later he still resented not having been asked to participate. (McCartney later hinted that it was for being left out of REVOLUTION 9, but also describing it as "a ricochet off John" and "a very John song".

I knew someone would come in with actual facts sooner or later

Thank you! VINDICATED! This explains why the slide guitar is bad but the drums are good.

Unlike Matt I don't have my copy of Revolution in the Head to hand, but I clearly remember that MacDonald describes Starr's drumming on She Said She Said as 'technically finer than that of his other tour de force, Rain'. So there. I am best at judging Ringo's drumming!

I liked Paul Merton's Devils Arse gag, “you coming up the Devils Arse? nah, but I might pop my head in a bit later”.

Oh ringo, good timing but not the best of drummers.

The standard joke goes something like "Ah, Ringo Starr. Not the best drummer in the world. Then again, not the best drummer in The Beatles either." It's easy to do the Ringo Starr joke because most people only know of Ringo Starr, Keith Moon and Phil Collins. Reference to Terry Bozzio or Aynsley Dunbar will probably go over most audience's heads. "Ah Aynsley Dunbar. Not the best drummer in the world. Then again not the best drummer in Aynsley Dunbar's Retaliation either." I did piss myself over the Jeffrey Archer clip.

I think a lot of the criticism of Ringos drumming is cos his snare was always offset and the production left an echo on it, so as good as his drumming may have been, it sounded like he was hitting a cardboard box with a leg of lamb. The only musical criticism I have of him is that his fills don't always segue back into the beat as smoothly as they could. Paul wasn't as good a drummer. He showed off and threw in fills where no fills should be, and the inbetween beats were unimaginative. Georges guitar playing was fab though...don't know what happened with that Chuck Berry thing...maybe it's just not his style. The 2nd half of Abbey Road should shut up anyone who has qualms with Ringo or George. John was useless, and Paul was only good at his main instruments. Badly Drawn Boys album is like Ram. All things must pass is the best beatles solo album. Johns solo career sucked. Ringo played piano on the badfinger blues video with mittens on, I woke up in the bath still drunk. i hope some of the above was coherent

>I did piss myself over the Jeffrey Archer clip.

the length of time it took, with the panning over the crowd before the shot of him just made it superb.

Speaking though of top drummers - Tony McCarroll out of Oasis - Mark and Lard's classic pisstake when they did the classical music album advert with Tony drumming along. i can't remember what it was called - does anyone know if it exists out on the internet there?

The Tony McCarroll pisstake you're thinking of was Tony McCarroll's Classical Gas. Also good was Tony McCarroll's drum'n'bass project, which consisted of him playing his one drumbeat and a bass player playing standard-issue bass riffs over the top. Funnier than that description makes it sound.

>John was useless

At the guitar? You thick cunt.

He says as much himself on the Imagine movie.

"I can't go out and play on people's sessions like George can, 'cause I'm not really much of a guitarist..." or words to that effect.

He's a songwriter anyway, more than a musician.

As far as the Roll Over Beethoven comments go, it's fair to say that on the early material (and a little of the late stuff) everyone puts in their fair share of duff moments, not just George (although many people I know rate him as an very average guitarist who just got lucky). The lack of time available must have had something to do with it. If anything, he's guilty of repeating Carl Perkins licks far too often. His slide work is superb, of course.

I'd agree that "She Said She Said" is one of Ringo's best moments, helped in no small amount by the snare sound and compressed cymbals. Also Cry Baby Cry's drumming is almost faultless, and of course there's A Day In The Life. The stickwork on the John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band LP is almost perfect as well - deadly accurate hi-hats.

The Ballad Of John And Yoko is (I think) the only example of McCartney's drumming that made it to a released Beatles track - Ringo and George being nowhere to be seen/heard on that one. McCartney's drumming weaknesses are probably best displayed on "Momma Miss America" off his 1st solo LP.

"Hello, and welcome to Rockschool II... we'll be boring you senseless throughout the show by showing off our technical abilities relentlessly, usually using equipment that none of you will own, or are every likely to be able to afford. Now, Alistair's going to annoy everyone with his new sampler, and Henry's going to play slap-funk bass like his life depended on it. I'll be looking a bit plain throughout, while Geoff'll be thinking up his next column for Making Music. A-one, two, a-one two three four five six seven..."

Ah! Dierdre Cartwright. Now there's a guitarist...

>>John was useless
>
>At the guitar?

yes. and his songs weren't that good either. consider the following

-incredibly naive and badly informed political views
-identical production on every song
-the most pointless and boring string arrangements known to man
-took tp the piano, cant play it
-whistling solos???
-pathetic attempts to gain recognition off hippies rather than teenyboppers by releasing utter shit with no musical merit just so the world knows he is "out there"

>-incredibly naive and badly informed political views

A lot of his songs aren't about politics as such. When they are they do seem naive, but consider 'A Day in the Life', which is all about perception and is about as poetic as a pop lyric gets.

>-identical production on every song

Solo career - possibly; Beatles - absolutely not.

>-the most pointless and boring string arrangements known to man

See above. See above for the rest of your points as well.

I was talking mostly about his solo career, sorry if I didnt make that clear

mnost of the good beatles stuff was paul as far as im concerned

I hope Maxwell's Silver Hammer comes down upon your head.

>-incredibly naive and badly informed political views

Yeah, that's a pretty standard criticism but when you actually look at it he didn't do that many political songs even on his solo albums. His solo stuff was far more personal.
For most of the albums there's the odd song and the odd line but not a significant aspect of his song writing
Save for New York city which has 99% of the political stuff but is hardly a typical JWL album. Mostly simplistic slogans.
"It ain't fair John Sinclair... they gave him ten for two" etc. Well it wasn't that fair - rubbish song admittedly. Sunday Bloody Sunday - naive and ill informed but if you're comparing him to McCartney - Give Ireland back to the Irish is surely less informed.
And the rest of the solo stuff only has the odd song or line which is political.
John Lennon Fact: Instant Karma is a very good song
"And we all shine on, not literally though."

Naive - but consciously so, that's the charm
Didn't he attend the Watergate hearings and read the papers cover to cover etc - so not *that* ill informed

Can I just say that "Ram"'s a great album, and so is "McCartney I"?

I'm just listening to them a lot at the moment.

And, as the excruciating Wingspan film proved, the reason Macca has never been a journalists' favourite, while Lennon gets column inches galore, is there is absolutely nothing interesting about the process behind McCartney's work (it's just craft, and you can't describe that), while Lennon was a spiky, impulsive mentalist married to a nutter who kept hiding in bags.

That his solo material is largely pants seems to get forgotten, seeing as journalists are usually only ever required to write about the context not the music.

Beatlebores, unite here. Yes here. Just under this banner.

>The Ballad Of John And Yoko is (I think) the only example of McCartney's drumming that made it to a released Beatles track ....

He played on 'Back In the U.S.S.R' and 'Dear Prudence'. I think the end of 'Strawberry Fields Forever' is Ringo and Paul playing drums together (the same kit). He suggested drum patterns for various songs, and generally stuck his nose in where it wasn't wanted. Bless.

Geoff Emerick was in the audience last night for Later... as Jools Holland pointed out. However, they obviously thought it'd be a waste of time to show us what he actually looks like so they gave another ten minutes to that bearded 'legend' someone McDonald.

>Can I just say that "Ram"'s a great album, and so is "McCartney I"?
>

yes, you can. please do.


>That his solo material is largely pants seems to get forgotten, seeing as journalists are usually only ever required to write about the context not the music.
>
I love you.

lennons solo work falls into two camps. His pseudo experimental bollocks, to tell the world he takes drugs and is "out there". and then his supposedly classic songs, that are all horrifically simple and boring and sound the same.

John wrote all the lovey dovey soppy stuff, and Paul wrote all the cutting edge stuff. No wait, Paul wrote all the lovey dovey soppy stuff. And John did the edgey stuff. they fucking did both!

let's face it - they were average out of the Beatles and when they were together they wrote some of the best music ever recorded.

All of them (bar Mr Starkey) have made a good solo album though - George has his 'All Things Must Pass', Lennon with his 'Plastic Ono Band', and McCartney with his 'Band on the Run' (well, I like it anyway).

> 'Rob Jones'

are you called Rob Jones in tribute to legendary Liverpool right back Rob Jones, or are you called Rob Jones.

Either way, well done.

Macca fans, check out

http://www.bandontherun.com

just good because it's there.

Not saying anything new, but would like to make known my concurrence with Butler about the first 2 McCartney solo records. He did some dreadful shite later on but Every Night, Maybe I'm Amazed, Dear Boy & Back Seat of My Car are as good as anything Paul did on the last few Beatles albums.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Paul only managed to get Maxwell's Silver Hammer onto Abbey Road by subterfuge. I picture John listening to it for the first time with Paul in the room. A look of disgust & disbelief crosses his face, and he wordlessly punches Paul very hard in the face as the first chorus ends.

Anyone who listens to John's solo stuff against Paul's solo stuff would have to be addled by Ono's wailing to conclude that John was the better songwriter.
The idea that Paul went from being the writer of Let It Be, Hey Jude, B-side of Abbey Road (nothing to do with any other Beatle in concept or structure) to being rubbish immediately for his solo work is silly. You can also make the case that apart from one or two, Lennon didn't record a good song after The White Album. I stress "Apart from one or two".

Early McCartney solo material is sublime. Yes, even the Only Fools And Horses-favoured 'Uncle Albert'.

"Not saying anything new, but would like to make known my concurrence with Butler about the first 2 McCartney solo records. He did some dreadful shite later on but Every Night, Maybe I'm Amazed, Dear Boy & Back Seat of My Car are as good as anything Paul did on the last few Beatles albums."

True - remember of course that the majority of the material on those LPs (well, the 1st one certainly) had been knocking around before The White Album (sorry, shouldn't really use capitals there...) - as indeed had most of Lennon's Abbey Roadish stuff. The Paul/John debate will run forever more, I have it with a few friends on a depressingly regular basis: I like Plastic Ono Band, they don't. "McCartney" is a really good LP though, it's simplicity being a strength. I was quite gutted when I found out that over half of it was done at Abbey Road, rather than all on the 4-track on the farm. Bah. Ram's got some bloody good songs on it, whereas Imagine is a bit dull and overblown in many places. Band On The Run is always desperately over-rated in my opinion, but Let Me Roll It is fabtastic, as they used to say.

Actually, I'm really a "Wild Life" and "Live Jam" person, so don't take what I say too seriously! Sorry, I'm not helping much here. Nothing unusual there, then.

Obviously Lennon's lyrics would have been improved immeasurably had he simply read from the pages of the Economist. It's essential for a pop song to have a firm grounding in the pragmatic monetarist viewpoint, otherwise it's just idealistic clap-trap, isn't it?

Whenever I hear 'Imagine,' it makes me shiver at the thought of trying to put some details behind such a wildly unrealistic business plan.

>Whenever I hear 'Imagine,' it makes me shiver at the thought of trying to put some details behind such a wildly unrealistic business plan.

when ever i hear 'Imagine' i turn it off.

>> 'Rob Jones'
>
>are you called Rob Jones in tribute to legendary Liverpool right back Rob Jones, or are you called Rob Jones.
>
>Either way, well done.

Thanks. I write for a fanzine in which, bizarrely, you have to name your pseudonym after a Liverpool footballer, past or present. I chose the most inconspicuous I could think of.

how could you pass up the chance to be barry venison?

I think venison's barry, too.

>I chose the most inconspicuous I could think of.

Well the little model Rob Jones on top of my speaker will be very proud.

You'd still be England right back if it weren't for injury - you had the lot pace, skill, defensive nous... what a shame.

>I write for a fanzine in which, bizarrely, you have to name your pseudonym after a Liverpool footballer

btw - what fanzine is it? Or I suppose what is it a fanzine of?

Ringo's drumming? I could have done that, it was just banging a bit of an old stick about wasn't it?

Paul - Very good
George - Very Good
John - Very overrated
Ringo - Very underrated as a drummer, one or two solo moments.

agreed?

Is it just me or did this thread wander off its original brief quite swiftly?

Looking at the title, isn't this supposed to be about the laziness of received stereotype humour (John Major is dull, John Prescott is fat, Ringo couldn't drum), and Paul Merton's sudden, uncharacteristic stand against it on HIGNFY - an act that lead to Angus Deayton dropping his guard and actually admitting the lazy shared assumptions that underpin most of what passes for topical comedy?

Anyone want to discuss that, rather than Beatles' musicianship, fascinating though that is for an old fabhead like myself?

>Paul Merton's sudden, uncharacteristic stand against it on HIGNFY - an act that lead to Angus Deayton dropping his guard and actually admitting the lazy shared assumptions that underpin most of what passes for topical comedy?

It was odd. I saw HIGNFY for the first time in about 5 years the other night. Deayton and Hislop were their usual tedious selves and Merton trotted out much the same nonsense that he always does. But there were two moments that stuck out. One was the aforementioned Ringo business, and the other was towards the end where Merton had a go at Deayton for them going on about Jeffrey Archer. He berated him because it wasn't 'news' and ready-witted Angus went a bit quiet and shuffled his papers.

Not *good* TV, but at least it surprised me slighty.

>
>Anyone want to discuss that, rather than Beatles' musicianship, fascinating though that is for an old fabhead like myself?

>Anyone want to discuss that, rather than Beatles' musicianship, fascinating though that is for an old fabhead like myself?

Yes, like the Topical Comedy is a Bad Idea article on SOTCAA says, most shite comedians leap upon new fads or received stereotypes like their life depended on it. Did you notice Angus' joke about Rich Hall being nervous opening the Perrier letter in case it had anthrax in it? This is exactly the sort of thing. You could see the thing coming a mile off, and it was dismal, not to mention Rich Hall won the award over a year before the anthrax break out, showing how desperate Angus was to shove a bit of forced topicality into anything he could.
Then when they run out of jokes about the war, they went back to Jeffrey Archer as usual, probably because they have a cupboard full of old jokes that were left over from the last series.

This war is an absolute boon for stand ups, imagine, before this they had to pad out their acts with jokes about the Teletubbies smoking pot or Channel 5 and the internet only ever having pornography on it.

>Then when they run out of jokes about the war, they went back to Jeffrey Archer as usual, probably because they have a cupboard full of old jokes that were left over from the last series.

The Archer case. It's just like when Robert Maxwell died, they all jumped up and down on the corpse (in both cases, not literally) because they now feel safe.

They weren't so fucking brave when both were still capable of sueing.

but getting back to the more interesting point:

Paul: very good (the best songwriter in the band)
John: very, very good (if for nothing else than Tomorrow Never Knows. Mark 1 and 2 are stunning, original pieces of music, even now. god knows what they must have sounded like hearing for the first time, from the same album as Yellow Submarine)
George: good (but he did get Clapton in, for fuck's sake!)
Ringo: okay (he never wrote a note).

>Did you notice Angus' joke about Rich Hall being nervous opening the Perrier letter in case it had anthrax in it? This is exactly the sort of thing. You could see the thing coming a mile off, and it was dismal, not to mention Rich Hall won the award over a year before the anthrax break out, showing how desperate Angus was to shove a bit of forced topicality into anything he could.

what exactly do you expect from a topical comedy show?

surely the point about mertons outburst was that he thinks ringo was a good drummer. if angus had said 'john prescott is fat' paul wouldn't have contradicted him.

Naaaah, I'd rather talk about the Beatles.

>btw - what fanzine is it? Or I suppose what is it a fanzine of?

'scalled 'RFE' (bad title, not mine) and used to be an REM fanzine before we changed it into a general music/film-type fanzine. No connection with liverpool fc. ahem, nothing to see here, etc.

To go off topic again, did anyone else get hold of/hear the 'Beatlerape' cd a few years back? The thing was obviously unauthorized but was on the shelves of Tower records and was a Beatles remix album with all original samples etc but done very very badly. A complete missed opportunity.

> They weren't so fucking brave when both were still capable of sueing.

Balls. They've been on Archer's tail for years.

In Maxwell's case it was the BBC who were terrified of libel suits, not the programme itself.

And exactly why shouldn't the demise of the Czech thug and the humiliation of the Weston-super-Mare bullshit bully be celebrated?

>Balls. They've been on Archer's tail for years.

Not many called him a "liar" on TV before he went to jail.

>In Maxwell's case it was the BBC who were terrified of libel suits, not the programme itself.

what does that mean? is the HIGNFY team some sort of daring rebel outfit, defying the strictures of the mighty BBC? if so, it doesn't show.

>And exactly why shouldn't the demise of the Czech thug and the humiliation of the Weston-super-Mare bullshit bully be celebrated?

there you go! "Czech thug" - not a thing anyone would have said when he was alive. Archer and Maxwell - easy, non-topical targets.

i did enjoy greatly Archer being found out, almost as much as I did seeing Jonathan Aitken in the same boat. but I find it interesting how everyone is happy to gather round and kick them when they are down, kind of like a playground bully.

>Not many called him a "liar" on TV before he went to jail.

But they *did*. They once devoted an entire odd-one-out round to various howling lies he'd told and scams he'd pulled - where he'd gone to university, that apparently bogus charity benefit gig for the Kurds, etc etc.

They did used to call him a liar. They did.


> is the HIGNFY team some sort of daring rebel outfit, defying the strictures of the mighty BBC?

No. But you were accusing them of being craven. And I was pointing out that it's the Beeb's own lawyers who will have insisted on certain things being cut.

The first series of the Mark Thomas Comedy Product got the Channel 4 lawyer at the time fired, though, as they kept ignoring him.


> I find it interesting how everyone is happy to gather round and kick them when they are down, kind of like a playground bully.

The "playground bully" tag is highly apposite, but only because it precisely describes Archer's behaviour (and, to a lesser extent, Aitken's). He is a bully and a liar and there are some who have been saying so for years; however their voices have been drowned out by those in the Establishment who prefer his money to his ethics. The same went for Maxwell.

The "kicking when down" is happening centre stage, however, while the way these bastards went about cowing and threatening and bullying anyone in their way was usually hidden behind the scenes. All the crowing on HIGNFY over Archer's just desserts is simply an extended riff on "Ding dong, the witch is dead"; your distaste is much better spent on the "playground bully" tactics this fucker has employed over the years instead.

>>Not many called him a "liar" on TV before he went to jail.
>
>But they *did*. They once devoted an entire odd-one-out round to various howling lies he'd told and scams he'd pulled - where he'd gone to university, that apparently bogus charity benefit gig for the Kurds, etc etc.

did they say "allegedly" after that? they are so cutting edge!
>
>No. But you were accusing them of being craven. And I was pointing out that it's the Beeb's own lawyers who will have insisted on certain things being cut.

It's not that risky saying stuff you know is going to be cut.

>The first series of the Mark Thomas Comedy Product got the Channel 4 lawyer at the time fired, though, as they kept ignoring him.
>
Nice. i thought Mark Thomas was all for workers' rights and fair treatment for all? ;) How does getting a guy sacked fit with that?

>The "playground bully" tag is highly apposite, but only because it precisely describes Archer's behaviour (and, to a lesser extent, Aitken's). He is a bully and a liar and there are some who have been saying so for years; however their voices have been drowned out by those in the Establishment who prefer his money to his ethics. The same went for Maxwell.

okay, assume that is all correct. it ain't very topical is it.

> your distaste is much better spent on the "playground bully" tactics this fucker has employed over the years instead.

don't bully me - i'm going to teacher!

>The same went for Maxwell.

e.g. Joe Haines and Anne Robinson

HIGNFY is getting increasingly desperate for non-war material at the moment.

It keeps picking dead stories and throwing them back at appropriate guests, so the whole show isn't just Taliban jokes.

Getting Jennie Bond, for instance, to comment on the Ardent Features hoo-hah was predictable - she's a royal correspondent - but the story was hardly "this week's news" was it? It was two or three Private Eyes ago, for a start. It must be a month old.

Once again, HIGNFY proves that topical "satire" rarely engages with big issues. During a war (a high-news time if ever there was one) they find there's no "news" that they're able to satirise using their standard format (no hilarious fat politicians, no celebrity gossip etc).

to be fair, satirisable (ahem) news is at a premium right now - a good game to play is to go to beeb teletext 102, and count the headlines that look like they're at least a week old.

"us jets to launch new raids on taleban"
"action may pause in ramadan - straw"
"commander warns not to rush in marines"
"no need for outside help - taleban"
"handling of farm virus "lamentable""
"airport slumps continuing, warns BA"

in 1989 - no-one died, etc. it's a satirical news quiz's worst nightmare.

>>Anyone want to discuss that, rather than Beatles' musicianship, fascinating though that is for an old fabhead like myself?
>
>Yes, like the Topical Comedy is a Bad Idea article on SOTCAA says, most shite comedians leap upon new fads or received stereotypes like their life depended on it. Did you notice Angus' joke about Rich Hall being nervous opening the Perrier letter in case it had anthrax in it? This is exactly the sort of thing. You could see the thing coming a mile off, and it was dismal, not to mention Rich Hall won the award over a year before the anthrax break out, showing how desperate Angus was to shove a bit of forced topicality into anything he could.
>Then when they run out of jokes about the war, they went back to Jeffrey Archer as usual, probably because they have a cupboard full of old jokes that were left over from the last series.
>
>This war is an absolute boon for stand ups, imagine, before this they had to pad out their acts with jokes about the Teletubbies smoking pot or Channel 5 and the internet only ever having pornography on it.
>
Oh you're back. What's up, Creche facilities closed in your neighbourhoud.?

What a lonely, embittered individual your posts indicate you to be Snorks.

You can't react like that when Steven's recent posts indicate a far more considered and balanced individual at work than the one used to pop up and spill reams of unbroken, unparagraphed spleen.

The creche joke was valid last year. In fact I think I might have used it. But Steven's making a lot of sense at the moment. So it doesn't work any more.

Well said, Butler. Conan Fuckface is posting further down, why not rip the piss out of him instead?

>You can't react like that when Steven's recent posts indicate a far more considered and balanced individual at work than the one used to pop up and spill reams of unbroken, unparagraphed spleen.
>
>The creche joke was valid last year. In fact I think I might have used it. But Steven's making a lot of sense at the moment. So it doesn't work any more.

I didn't 'pop-up', I've been on SOTCAA since it was set up, I think Mike posted the link in the L&H board just after it went online.
I don't know if Butler's message was meant as compliment, but I can't say it comes across as one. My posts were as well intentioned then as now, but I am very insecure posting messages on this board, because I am precisely worried about people posting hateful stuff back, see Snorky and about 1000 other posts for reference. So I often floundered about questioning my own opinion and not actually trying to write a water tight argument. People singled me out and made threads up just for taking the piss out of me, or calling me the new Dan L, just because I was trying in vain to express some kind of an opinion, however badly and un-thought out it was. I've had an almost remedial Welsh taught education, I would consider I was an quite intelligent child, but was hampered by a very poor education, now I'm just trying to claw back some English literacy ability.

The point is, I love comedy, just because most of my posts concern criticising something doesn't mean I hate everything. If I ever do write anything positive, it seems it is overlooked and people seem to only focus in on any vitriol. And can I just state, I think Richard Herring and Stewart Lee are marvelous writers/performers (not sure about Al Murray), and despite overly criticising their more recent stuff, it doesn't mean I don't like them.
Though I do hope they get back working together as a double-act in the future.

You tug that forelock any more, Steven, and it'll come off.

>So I often floundered about questioning my own opinion and not actually trying to write a water tight argument. People singled me out and made threads up just for taking the piss out of me,

No excuse for taking the piss out of you, only your opinions and the way you tried to get them across. I think the problem stemmed from the fact that you hold very strong views on absolutely everything. When that is the case, you need to be *very* clear with your arguments - because people will attack it.

I agree with Unruly Butler (as usual - he is ace). I'd far rather read a slightly-too-lengthy Steven post than a piss-poor attempt at forum-wrecking, 'humour' or a load of quotes from a programme that we've all seen.

More power to your elbow, Steven.


But you're still wrong about music...

>No excuse for taking the piss out of you, only your opinions and the way you tried to get them across. I think the problem stemmed from the fact that you hold very strong views on absolutely everything. When that is the case, you need to be *very* clear with your arguments - because people will attack it.

Yep, I've always admitted this. I just wanted to express my own convoluted opinion, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition (Bam bam baaam!) from the other forum members over them. I hope I can argue slightly better now, but if Butler says something that comes across to me as "Leave off Steven, he can actually write something coherent now, granted he use to be a total spastic, but..", I know that's exaggerating, but it was barely a compliment.

>I agree with Unruly Butler (as usual - he is ace). I'd far rather read a slightly-too-lengthy Steven post than a piss-poor attempt at forum-wrecking, 'humour' or a load of quotes from a programme that we've all seen.

But wouldn't you rather read a slightly-too-lenghty anything post than a piss-poor attempt at forum-wrecking, 'humour' or a load of quotes from a programme we've all seen?


>But you're still wrong about music...

In what sense? I thought 'Punk' attitude was immature and pointless, 90% of the music was derivative garbage, etc etc. I don't see that as an extremely controversial statement, granted it wasn't all crap, but isn't that the same as every other genre? And if you're argument is backed by subjective opinion, that makes my taste equally valid doesn't it? And I really do think in the most objective way possible, that the `60s produced a cavalcade of more talent driven and interesting music than any other decade, I really can't see that as a cliche. And most of the good stuff since, has been retro music imitating those styles.
Bored yet? You will be, you will be..

> In what sense? I thought...

In the sense that that is what you think, and other people think you're wrong.

Restating the opinions with which they disagree won't suddenly make them think you're right.

And, on the original point, you yourself admit that you "think you argue better now". That's what I was saying. Whether it's insulting or complimentary, you agree that it's true. So just leave it, and carry on being sensible, not sensitive.

>>>But you're still wrong about music...
>
>In what sense? I thought 'Punk' attitude was immature and pointless... blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda musical 'talent' etc. etc.

Steven. It was a throwaway line. Leave it.

>Steven. It was a throwaway line. Leave it.

I know it was! I was following it up partly in jest, but partly because I know we never got anywhere in the original argument, but it's obvious that me saying 'most punk music was crap' would be true in any genre, 'most heavy metal music is crap', 'most raggae music is crap', so I had no argument originally, but it was ok for everyone to tell me that the `60's were a cliche and it wasn't a 'golden age of music' as I had thought, even though everyone involved in the argument weren't even alive at the time! The people I derived the opinion from were, therefore surely I am entitled to believe their opinion if I so wish. Blah blah, woof woof!

>In the sense that that is what you think, and other people think you're wrong.

And vice versa..

>Restating the opinions with which they disagree won't suddenly make them think you're right.

That was due to my frustration of not being able to get across what I meant in writing at all well. So I tried over and over and over, obviously some people didn't agree at either stage so it was futile from one standpoint. But some people like Jon continually started arguments with me over my 'opinions' because he had simply misread them originally and no matter how many times I reiterated how he was wrong and explaining why, he'd seemingly ignore this and carry on regardless. Me saying 'Time Gentlemen Please isn't very good' over and over as Al Murray and Richard Herring say 'Actually it's very clever..' isn't quite the same thing.

>And, on the original point, you yourself admit that you "think you argue better now". That's what I was saying. Whether it's insulting or complimentary, you agree that it's true. So just leave it, and carry on being sensible, not sensitive.

It wasn't that, it was you personifying me as some dribbling idiot shouting at a wall, if that's what I came across as to you, fine. But I can't say it was my objective, I think you were taking my messages the wrong way from the very start.

Don't want to perpetuate this...

But, can you see a pattern here?

Jon "misread" your postings. Jessica "misunderstood" your opinions. Now I've "taken your messages the wrong way".

None of us are stupid, as far as I know. And, certainly until you start raging and spitting about being misinterpreted, none of us have an axe to grind about you.

So maybe we aren't misreading things, or attacking you, or whatever. I'm certainly not. I don't even know you. You're a regular, valuable forum contributor, just like many other people. Why would I pick you out? What could I possibly have to gain from insulting or intimidating you. You're just getting oversensitive. Any posting containing your name, or near one of your messages, gets scrutinised to within an inch of its life for possible attacks on your person. For god's sake, lighten up.

As I said, be sensible, not sensitive. I was actually complimenting you, and trying to stand up for your recent postings, when someone was needlessly insulting. I didn't see that it was a legitimate flame, since you were expressing yourself far more cogently than I'd ever seen you do before. I remarked as much to a few mates socially. I'd been pleasantly surprised by your measured, clear stance on various issues of late.

But now you're getting paranoid and defensive again.

I have no idea why.

If I were you, I'd lay off the weed.

>Jon "misread" your postings.

But Jon *did* misread my postings! He went on about me giving a certain argument that I never gave, he'd just got it all mixed up a bit. Seemed like he was just twisting my argument about to fit his agenda, he had evidence to support his theory, and so could prove mine wrong and gloat, except he wasn't even using my real opinion. And then after me explaining it to him, he kept popping up saying I was wrong, in completely irrelevant threads, as if presenting how he had thought I was wrong about one thing, it must mean I am wrong about whatever it is I'm saying in the current thread, etc etc, very annoying anyway.

>Jessica "misunderstood" your opinions.

Where did I say that? I'm agreeing with her that I had no argument. The argument is so far into the realms of subjectivity that it's pointless really.

>I've "taken your messages the wrong way".

Well, from what I've read about your view of my posts, you said I wrote tons of unparagraphed crap and shouted at the top of my voice until I fell over. I don't think I've ever been very angry about anything on this board, when I act a bit obtuse like that it's usually because I'm concerned about the subject, it wasn't meant to be a slanging match.

>So maybe we aren't misreading things, or attacking you, or whatever. I'm certainly not. I don't even know you. You're a regular, valuable forum contributor, just like many other people. Why would I pick you out? What could I possibly have to gain from insulting or intimidating you. You're just getting oversensitive. Any posting containing your name, or near one of your messages, gets scrutinised to within an inch of its life for possible attacks on your person. For god's sake, lighten up.

Well I've seen far more personal attacks on me than anybody else here on the forum (except maybe the Corpses), so maybe that had something to do with it. And I do post on quite a few other unrelated boards and have no such anxieties about things, it just seems to be with people on here, wonder why that is? There's a lot of people posting here who I don't like at all, but I've never personally attacked them, unless of course they did it to me first, e.g. Brooker, Jon, Hackenbush. I don't know you Butler, you don't know me, I don't make assumptions about you, you don't make assumptions about me, that's fair isn't it?

>As I said, be sensible, not sensitive. I was actually complimenting you, and trying to stand up for your recent postings, when someone was needlessly insulting. I didn't see that it was a legitimate flame, since you were expressing yourself far more cogently than I'd ever seen you do before. I remarked as much to a few mates socially. I'd been pleasantly surprised by your measured, clear stance on various issues of late.

As I've said about 3 times already, a compliment doesn't really work if you then say what a useless cretin you thought they were. It detracts somewhat. But thanks for showing an interest and bother to keep up the dialogue, as you no doubt would rather be doing something else.

>If I were you, I'd lay off the weed.

Oh dear. Let yourself down a bit there. Making assumptions again, I've never smoked weed in my life, I don't even smoke cigerettes, and I really don't like it when people refer to drugs in social contexts as if it's completely normal and everyone does it. Maybe I was acting sensitive because I am sensitive, did you think of that?

Hope we can argue over something a bit more comedy related after this is done though anyway, Butler.

Alright then. I stand corrected.

Smoke more weed.

Takes the edge off life. Things seem less important. David Blunkett will give you a smoky kiss. Lovely.

;)

If I were you, I'd lay off perpetuating arguments on the flimsiest of pretexts, Steven. It makes for dull reading, and makes yourself appear a tad self-obsessed.

BTW, EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.

(Don't Worry, Steve, that wasn't a dig at you-I was just throwing in a Fireside Theatre reference-this IS a comedy Forum, Y'know)

Bleh..

I agree.

This is one of those threads where you're both determined to have the last word, right?

No, I just wanted to see if Steven could get upset by the phrase "I agree".

Well, it is an ambiguous, potentially loaded phrase. Steve, if I were you, I'd let him have it.

Yes.