Print Story A hippo and an ewok

Random tack, electromagnetically.



Becoming our parents slowly

Ever since I was young, the sounds of BBC Radio 4 reverberated round the house, mostly owing to my Dad. This has affected me and my siblings in various different ways.

  • All of us have developed a pathological hatred of 'The Archers' ("The world's longest-running radio soap" - I know; they're actually proud about it). If you ever want a town massacred, just get us there, make sure there are automatic weapons within a convenient reaching-distance, and start playing any damned episode you like over a PA system.

    I don't know what it is, but you can instantly tell an Archers episode apart from any other radio drama from a few scant nanoseconds of smug, inauthentic, rurality-patronising, middle-class-cosseting audio. I know there are probably some people here who like it. Fuck you. You're wrong.

  • All of us have a healthy respect for 'The Today Programme' and 'PM' and tune-in frequently.

  • We all play the "Spot the decent 6:30pm comedy series" game.

    For people who don't know what I'm talking about, Radio 4 broadcasts its main evening news programme between 6pm and 6:30pm; leaving the 6:30-7:00pm slot free for radio comedy every weeknight. There are five weeknights a week, which leaves roughly 250 comedy slots per year. If you gave each separate show a 6-part run, you could fit in something like 40 different shows per year. In practise, it never works out quite like this as there are perennial favourites which get longer runs and multiple series, but there are still 15-30 different shows given a chance each year in this spot.

    It sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? and, as an idea, it is indeed terrific. As a finished reality however, it sucks donkey balls. Most of the shows seem to function solely to give put-out-to-pasture comedians a clump of hay for the winter. Those comedic musicians who are nether funny enough to be comedians nor musical enough to be musicians — Let's rhyme 'Blair' with 'bear' to the tune of the Colonel Bogey March or a current top twenty hit — can, apparently, still find work. Incredible, isn't it?

    It's not all terrible, though. Some great comedy has come out of this experiment. On The Hour essentially launched the careers of Armando Iannucci and Chris Morris, leading directly to 'Alan Partridge' (also first tried as radio comedy in the comedy slot), 'The Day Today' and 'Brass Eye'. More recently, Ross Noble's world tours have been chucklesome and 'That Mitchell and Webb Sound' has been enjoying much greater success in visual form.

  • We all play 'spot the decent documentary series' for similar reasons. Do you remember the David Mellor sex-in-a-Chelsea-shirt-with-toe-sucking incident? It didn't happen. The article on Friday's 'The Message' show (currently off-air) dealing with intentionally-manufactured tabloid news stories was one of the best, and most chilling, things I've heard in recent years.

As I think you can see, my relationship with Radio 4 is something of a love/hate one. It seems to embody an awful lot of what is both great and fucking atrocious about "mainstream" middle-brow British culture, and perhaps also, in some strange way, my parents. Upon visiting my folks' house, it is not uncommon to pass through empty room after empty room turning radios off, just as my Dad leaves a trail of tinny speakers blaring in his wake; if he had his way, he'd probably get Radio 4 piped throughout the house. To give an even better idea of the addiction, he has waterproof radios in each bathroom and shower.

I haven't owned a radio since I was a child. I've got a number of stereos with radios in them; I've got a CD player in the car that comes with a radio; you can even pick up FM on my mobile phone with the hands-free headphones acting as an antenna, but I've never bought a radio, or can't recall doing so.

Radio 4 (long wave) and Radio 5 Live Extra's Ashes coverage has convinced me, though. As soon as tonight's rush hour dies down, I'm off to buy an old-school analogue radio as I can't shackle myself to a computer just to get the latest live feed coverage; I want to lie in bed and listen to the unmitigated disaster unfolding. They were all-out by 1:30am last night ... ermmm ... fortunately[?].

And my journey towards becoming my dad and/or grandad will be one step nearer completion.

 

-=+=-

 

See no evil, speak no evil

Tangentially, Martin Kelner raises a valid point in today's Guardian blogs: Why can cricket commentators seemingly feel able to criticise openly all things surrounding the game in a relatively calm and perceptive manner, yet football commentators cannot?

Is it that footballers and their critics simply aren't as intelligent as their cricketing equivalents? Or is it that the financial stakes are heightened to such an extent (The BBC bid £120million for three years' worth of Premiership highlights, FFS ...) that they feel less willing to slag off their dearly-bought product? Or is it that cricket is vastly more complicated and allows greater depths of lengthy analysis? I'm not sure I buy that — though it's possible — but whatever the reason, the raw fact of the matter seems to be there.

 

-=+=-

 

Mountain of the Week #3

We have a winner. TurboThy correctly guessed that last week's mountain ...

... was Denali / Mount McKinley at 6194m (20,320 ft). North Americans; you should be ashamed of yourselves. Denali is a pretty remarkable mountain, but also a pretty famous one, so I'll spare most of the hard-sell, which can be gotten from the wikipedia link above and the summitpost Mount McKinley page.

The main point for doing Denali this week was as an excuse to link to these two images, both taken from the west buttress ridge, which give an incredible sense of raw height, as a result of Denali's exceptional prominence.

 

-=+=-

 

A step too far

I am no longer going to watch football matches in or from stadia which have those fucking obnoxious LED-powered advertising boards. It was bad enough when they were those triangular designs which rotated every fifteen seconds, but then it was more to do with maximising space (i.e. charging three times for the same board). The first wave of LED advertisements weren't quite as bad; they just moved in order to change. With the advent of the LED banner, and marketers more familiar with their abilities, they now flash, bounce, jiggle, strobe, change colour and generally do everything possible to distract your attention from the game itself.

It has gotten to the ridiculous point where the marketing is now detrimentally affecting the main product and I can no longer bring myself to tolerate it. Sadly, my absence will make little difference to their all-consuming march.

In truth, I didn't think they would last very long. I've been waiting avidly for the day when a player blamed a critical error on the animated adverts — World Cup qualifier, Champion's League knock-out game etc. — but it's not yet happened. Actually, I've seen a number of incidents — including a wayward Rio Ferdinand pass on Sunday — where I suspect that an advert may actually have been the culprit, but also suspect that, unless the incident is of extreme significance, anti-advert sentiment from players isn't going to find its way out to the public arena. Some grounds, I notice, have gone so far as to have the advertising boards below the level of the pitch, so that the players generally can't see them but the television audience must.

Whatever. Enough.

< Thankful and Ungrateful | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
A hippo and an ewok | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Cricket... by Metatone (4.00 / 1) #1 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:44:18 PM EST
I feel it's an odd one, because whilst there is a pool of cricketers who have more education than the average footballer you could always get a decent analysis out of cricket players who came straight from the coal mines. And there are enough footballers that you would expect some talented analysts to rise to prominence.

Perhaps it is just the pace of cricket that lends to analysis whilst you are playing. After all, what else is there to do a lot of the time?

I had a bad feeling about the first test and thus didn't switch the radio on in bed, preferring to check the first couple of overs on OBO and go to bed with false hopes of better news in the morning...

I think the loss of Troy Cooley is showing through painfully and personally I think that Panesar was a gamble worth taking. The threat of taking wickets tends to be worth more than the 47 runs Giles contributed, especially when if any of the seamers misfire. I just hope we can make a game of it from here on.



Lessee ... by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 04:29:41 PM EST
Perhaps it is just the pace of cricket that lends to analysis whilst you are playing. After all, what else is there to do a lot of the time?

True. It's been said before that cricket is a nice chat punctuated with an occasional bit of sport, whereas football is the opposite. It also means that the commentators are more practised at filling the time with interesting (or at least cogent) observations whereas the football people are reluctant to get into anything in any depth as the odds are that they won't get to finish the subject.

It's not just that, though. In the last few days, I've heard people laying into the broadcasters, the pitch, the Aussie team, the English team, individual players, Cricket Australia, the Gabba, the barmy army and much more with a breadth and expansiveness I've rarely, if ever, heard from football commentators. You never hear the football people having a pop at SKY, or Manchester United's media provision, for example - and when someone hasn't performed well it's debated in a very limited, established and generally uncontroversial set of terms. Perhaps it's because the tabloids are more voracious when it comes to football that the TV people tend to go more gently.

It may also be to do with football's disparate nature: All the commentators know each other and many of the players; their loyalties then seem to lie with the holistic nature of the game itself. With Cricket, you have a whole bunch of commentators who've all played for either England or Australia, so they only ever see it in terms of how badly or well the current bunch are doing relative to their own careers. Boycott, for example, can be a miserable old bastard, but he's refreshing for precisely that reason; he says things, both insulting and true, that more considered opinion would decide should be kept silent.

I think the loss of Troy Cooley is showing through painfully and personally I think that Panesar was a gamble worth taking.

As for the series, I think the loss of Jones (Simon) is more significant than that of Cooley. He was the only one to get it reverse swinging consistently last time and, as I mentioned before, he may not have got the most wickets, but he took out people like Langer and Gilchrist, and they're trouble. I'm reliably informed that the atmospherics in Australia don't lend themselves to late afternoon reverse swing in quite the same way as in the UK, and that the Aussie balls (kookaburras?) don't reverse like the Duke's, so maybe this isn't significant, but Hoggard managed to get it reversing the other evening, so it would have been interesting to see what Jones could do.

He was also important because of the lack-of-respite angle. Last year, the Aussies had four on-form pace bowlers coming at them relentlessly, getting the old ball to swing like crazy, too. With Harmison "eccentric" and Anderson merely half-competent, the aussies know that once they've weathered Flintoff, they're on easy street. The pace attack will get better over the series, but I don't know whether it'll be enough.

Cooley will certainly be missed, though, in that I think Harmison would take "serious correction" from him, where he might not from anyone else. Agnew mentioned that Dennis Lillee had offered to help out as he could see three areas where Harmison was going wrong. If so, I'd get him in there quickly, but I doubt Fletcher will.

Overall: I tend to agree with Chappell's assessment that spin wasn't the decisive factor in Brisbane, it was lost by the pace bowlers and diabolical batting decisions.


----
Done.
[ Parent ]

Jones... by Metatone (4.00 / 1) #7 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 05:20:36 PM EST
(bowler) is indeed a big loss, but other than cursing fate for his injuries I can't really claim something different should have been done. Hence, my focus on Cooley. I think if Harmison had bowled reasonably (instead of terribly) we'd have been closer to getting a draw.

I don't think spin could have made up for diabolical batting and pace bowling, but it might have edged us a bit closer to respectability. Of course, there are those who say that a huge defeat is psychologically less damaging than a closer one, so maybe it's all moot.

On the commentary angle, I'm inclined to what you are hinting at: Football commentary is connected to the economic arrangement of the game. That's certainly part of why people are less critical, who wants to offend a potential employer? Cricket is run much more amateurishly and so people speak with more freedom. Also, no cricket figure could sustain something like Fergie's boycott of BBC reporters, it just wouldn't fly in the economics of cricket.

I don't read much tabloid output on football, but my impression is that while it may be voracious, it's a bit scattergun. Perhaps that is just the absorption of the "celebrity angle" from the rest of the newsroom, but whilst they are very happy to blast "old-fashioned blazers at the FA" they don't seem so interested in talking honestly about the (sometimes abusive) wielding of power by the Premier League.

[ Parent ]

Adelaide will be different by creo (4.00 / 2) #9 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:01:34 AM EST
The track is a bit flatter, and the Pommy batsmen lasted longer than a couple of overs each in the second innings. I think the second innings would have given the batsmen a lot of confidence.

But that's not where the Pom's problems are - in our second innings only one guy got out, and that was because of a risky run. That would be ringing danger bells to me - if the English attack does not get it's shit together it's going to be as 5-0 whitewash.

277 was a generous result - if Ponting was not worried about the weather, then it would have easily been a 400+ run loss. I got to watch pretty much the entire match while working in the loungeroom, and the Poms (other than Peterson and Collingwood's batting in the second innings) were never even faintly in the race. It was embarrasing in some ways to watch - Australias batsmen were just taking runs whenever they felt like it.

Still, with the extra match practice and the batsmen looking better, I do not think Adelaide should be so one sided.

Cheers
Creo.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian
[ Parent ]

Who are the football commentators... by Metatone (4.00 / 1) #2 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 01:49:43 PM EST
who've actually made some sense for you?

Offhand, I'm struggling. Pleat has had insight on odd occasions, as have the odd Brazilian (Leonardo, Socrates) and he doesn't present intellectually but I've found some value in Marcel Desailly's feel for the game, particularly on African Cup of Nations games.

For as long as I can remember people have been mooning over Andy Gray but he never seemed that impressive to me.



Go whole hog by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #3 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:04:57 PM EST
get a short wave combo thing.

Then you can listen to the terrorists first hand.

I've got a portable Sony thing.
--
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together


Prominence by TurboThy (4.00 / 1) #5 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 04:37:39 PM EST
Actually, prominence is what made me think of Denali - reading about prominence previously on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah) while researching for a previous MotW I saw that Denali's encirclement parent is Aconcagua. Thus, the visual hint that the height of this MotW was close to Aconcagua made me look to North America.

BTW, that DTM data is pretty cool :)
__
You can't fix anything, you can't change anything, so just tell them that everything is A. The Fuck OK. —Rogerborg


Radio 4. by herbert (4.00 / 1) #6 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 04:55:45 PM EST
Yup.  I also like it despite not liking very many of the actual programmes.  May I add to the shitlist:



commentators by alprazolam (4.00 / 1) #8 Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 06:14:38 PM EST
Same thing wrt baseball and it's announcers (except for the guys who did the world series) and American football. The good baseball announcers are 90% guys who are older and know the entire history of the game back to front including having played some, and can tell you stories, can describe the position of the fingers on the ball in a splitter, and because of the slow pace of the game, earn respect by noticing details correctly. Whereas in football, the announcers are either PC play by play guys who don't have any experience in the game (even...or especially as a fan), coupled with an ex player who might have loved the game in high school but can't understand fandom and seem to garner respect by the loudness and frequency with which they comment.



Weird by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:18:22 AM EST
My dad is your dad. I am you. I too hate the Archers and don't own a radio. Does the Shipping Forecast make you feel like you're back in the womb? There is nothing so soothing.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!


Not the womb by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:12:28 AM EST

so much as doing the register in primary school. You know that some form of civilisation is still at least barely functioning when being told of the projected wind speed in Rockall.


----
Done.
[ Parent ]

Primary school... by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:26:14 AM EST
I nearly burst into tears then. Life used to be so much simpler. Doesn't help that I'm on a comedown.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

Ouch by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #14 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:58:22 AM EST

Ridiculous Ronaldinho goal from the weekend.

Puppy (Akita)

I'm feeling fairly comedown-ish myself, except I've not had anything. Boo.


----
Done.
[ Parent ]

Aww mate by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #16 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:16:40 AM EST
That's better.

Hopefully these cats will cheer you up.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

Five Live Extra by Vulch (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:44:00 AM EST

That be a digital only channel. I've got a little DAB portable for that and 6Music.



Except by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:02:01 AM EST

that the cricket feed is being broadcast simultaneously on Radio 4 long wave (with occasional breaks for the shipping forecast). DAB is pretty uselss up here -- the specific area where I live has very sporadic, patchy and unreliable reception. The area where my dad lives has none whatsoever.


----
Done.
[ Parent ]

A hippo and an ewok | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback