I'm not doing an online April Fool this year. I did one last year, about which precisely no monkeys were given, so really, what's the point?
A lot of the music blogs I read are posting The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again instead, which seems like a much better idea. But this is New Amusements, not Same Amusements, so here's a different version to the one you know and love.
Very sad to hear of Ronnie Corbett's passing. Watching The Two Ronnies on TV was very much a part of my childhood, and watching it now is still terrific. It calls to mind a simpler, gentler and altogether more joyful age.
The thing that I remember most from The Two Ronnies is not "Fork Handles" or any of the more commonly repeated sketches. Instead, it is one of their mini-serials that was broadcast in segments, ten minutes a week as part of their main show. It was called The Worm That Turned. Looking back now, I guess the inspiration for its theme - women ruling, men subjugated - was somewhat obvious, given the coterminous ascent of one Margaret Hilda Thatcher. At the time, though, I was about nine or so, and was probably more struck by the Two Ronnies wearing dresses and the female secret police having PVC uniforms. Here's the first episode - you can watch the whole story here.
I also recall a particular Two Ronnies musical number, in which they performed their version of The Drunken Sailor. It included the memorable lines:
Hooray and up she rises,
She's got knees of different sizes.
One's quite small and the other wins prizes,
Early in the morning.
In later life, I would adopt and adapt this as a drinking song. Happy days.
Don't go back, they say. Never go back.
They are usually talking about relationships or jobs when they say this. Now I've never gone back to the former (though I have been the one that a woman went back to, with predictably calamitous results), and I've never been in the position of having to go back to a former workplace, though I have thought about it. But now … now I have sort of gone back, almost in time.
I'd better explain that, in case you're wondering whether I have a DeLorean parked out the back. I don't, obviously. Instead, my career, via its usual circuitous and serendipitous route, has just taken me back, as I am now gainfully employed at the same university I did my undergraduate degree at, a barely credible quarter of a century ago.
A lot has changed since I graduated in 1992. Old buildings have been spruced up and refurbished. Lots of new buildings have appeared. One old building, a breeze-block hall of residence that I lived in for one of the happiest years of my life, has gone completely, razed to the ground and replaced with something modern, shiny and en-suite. And student numbers have nearly doubled since my day. In my day … that's a phrase I've said a lot in the last month.
So what about those students - have they changed? Well, yes and no. The essential quality of being a student seems largely unchanged - there are still those making a beeline for the library, those making a beeline for the bar and those not really making an obvious beeline for anywhere or anything. Judging purely from overheard snippets of conversation, I'd say that all the usual student pretensions are still in place too, albeit a little more mass-market. I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that, other than to say I don't believe today's school leavers are proportionally brighter and therefore more deserving of a university education than they were in my day … yet so many more of them follow that path. Something must have changed, right?
Anyway, that's probably a subject for another blog post. Where was I? Oh yes, changes in students. The biggest change, bar none, is how much more affluent they all seem these days. So many of them seem quite happy to spend more on their lunch than I do. And they're all so well dressed. Designer labels and latest trends are everywhere. In my day (there we go again), so many of us relied on charity shops for our "new" clothes, and it showed. Not so any more. And I guess maybe it's viewed as an essential item, but they all seem to have their own laptops now, in addition to tablets and smartphones. I guess what I'm trying to say is, okay, today's students may all have loans and be in debt but they don't seem, on the surface at least, to be poor. I did my undergrad in the last years of the old means-tested grant system and, although I got something, I didn't get much. In my first year, living on campus, my food budget for the week was £7. Yep, a pound a day to live on. Even in 1989, that didn't go very far. The supermarket was my friend - in fact, a shopping trip often involved cycling to four different supermarkets, buying things from my carefully planned list wherever they were cheapest. In my second year, my grant was for the princely sum of £1,400 which sounds a lot until you realise that my rent that year was £1,680. And okay, it's true that there were no student fees in my day … but there were no loans either. Students like me scrimped. In fact, scrimping was an essential part of the student experience then, far, far more than it seems to be today, from my admittedly third party perspective. Nothing seems to typify this change more than the fact that there is no longer a second-hand bookshop on campus. That was always the first port of call after the first lecture in a new subject - in fact, there was often a mad dash to try to get one of however few copies of the required text might be there, knocking about at 40% of the new price. These days, I guess students just take a stroll to the on-site Waterstone's or download an e-book copy onto their tablets.
So, some things have changed, others have stayed basically the same. Sunrise, sunset, all that. I still love the place. I always will. It didn’t shape me in the same way my secondary school did, but it was my place, and the backdrop to indelible memories. I only hope, four weeks into my new job, that coming back here in a very different capacity only reinforces the connection I feel, rather than tarnishes it. Earlier this week, on my way back from lunch, I took a detour through my old faculty building. I made my way out through the distinctive atrium, with blue handrails and loud, clattering metal walkways, and really did feel that I'd stepped back in time. Only then did I realise that I've gained 20lbs since 1992, have less than half the hair I had then and am now essentially invisible to the students that were milling around me. That, my friend, is a good way to feel old.
All of which is a good excuse for embedding this song. I was a bit late to the party with R.E.M. and didn't hear their first two albums until the most amazing woman I'd met at that time played them to me in her room just up the corridor in that now-bulldozed hall of residence, in the early months of 1990. From "Reckoning" then, here's the appropriately titled "(Don't Go Back To) Rockville". Whilst you enjoy it, I'm off to reminisce about that year, indelible memories and, if truth be told, that woman.
George Martin's death was announced yesterday. I won't do an obit - there's one here. And I won't labour his contribution to The Beatles' sound, because it was immeasurable - he made that sound every bit as much as those four lads from Liverpool.
I will just talk a little bit about an interview George gave to rock journalist Mark Ellen back in 2007, that was reprinted in full on The Times website yesterday (behind this paywall).
After lamenting signing away royalties ("about half a penny per title but, with them, that would have been an enormous amount”), George went on to talk about personal wealth, money in general, and how attitudes to money reflect changes in society. Here's what he said, for the benefit of non-Times subscribers (like me):
"But I've got all the money I could want. People think I'm a multimillionaire and I'm not."
"I tend to look at people and think, 'Are you a good human being?' That's what impresses me most rather than what they've achieved."
"We're a bit short on people like that at the moment – people who do good things and spread love for each other."
"We get an awful lot of people who are selfish. I think Margaret Thatcher started it, the greed thing, people just wanting more and more. And we've lost our morals to some extent. And the church has weakened. People don't believe in anything apart from money and success."
"I know it's easy for me to say as I've had some success, but I really believe family and love are more important than anything. Amore Solum Opus Est indeed!"
Last month, I tried to predict the outcome of the Oscars. To demonstrate why I'm not much of a betting man, here's a summary of last night's winners against my predictions. Let's see how I did.
Best Picture
Prediction: The Revenant
Winner: Spotlight
Score: 0/1
Actor in a Leading Role
Prediction: Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant
Winner: Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant
Score: 1/2
Actor in a Supporting Role
Prediction: Sylvester Stallone - Creed
Winner: Mark Rylance - Bridge of Spies
Score: 1/3
Actress in a Leading Role
Prediction: Charlotte Rampling - 45 Years
Winner: Brie Larson - Room
Score: 1/4
Actress in a Supporting Role
Prediction: Jennifer Jason Leigh - The Hateful Eight
Winner: Alicia Vikander - The Danish Girl
Score: 1/5
Directing
Prediction: Alejandro González Iñárritu - The Revenant
Winner: Alejandro González Iñárritu - The Revenant
Score: 2/6
Animated Feature Film
Prediction: Anomalisa
Winner: Inside Out
Score: 2/7
Costume Design
Prediction: The Danish Girl
Winner: Mad Mad: Fury Road
Score: 2/8
Documentary Feature
Prediction: Winter on Fire
Winner: Amy
Score: 2/9
Documentary Short
Prediction: Last Day of Freedom
Winner: A Girl in the River
Score: 2/10
Makeup and Hairstyling
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Winner: Mad Max: Fury Road
Score: 3/11
Original Song
Prediction:Writing’s on the Wall - Spectre
Winner: Writing’s on the Wall - Spectre
Score: 4/12
Animated Short
Prediction: Bear Story
Winner: Bear Story
Score: 5/13
Sound Editing
Predicted: The Revenant
Winner: Mad Mad: Fury Road
Score: 5/14
Cinematography
Predicted: The Revenant
Winner: The Revenant
Score: 6/15
Film Editing
Predicted: The Big Short
Winner: Mad Max: Fury Road
Score: 6/16
Foreign Language
Predicted: Mustang
Winner: Son of Saul
Score: 6/17
Music - Original Score
Predicted: Bridge of Spies
Winner: The Hateful Eight
Score: 6/18
Production Design
Prediction: Bridge of Spies
Winner: Mad Max: Fury Road
Score: 6/19
Live Action Short
Prediction: Day One
Winner: Stutterer
Score: 6/20
Sound Mixing
Predicted: The Revenant
Winner: Mad Mad: Fury Road
Score: 6/21
Visual Effects
Prediction: The Martian
Winner: Ex Machina
Score: 6/22
Writing - Adapted Screenplay
Prediction: Brooklyn
Winner: The Big Short
Score: 6/23
Writing - Original Screenplay
Prediction: Bridge of Spies
Winner: Spotlight
Score: 6/24
So how did I do? A frankly appalling 25% hit rate, barely better than putting a blindfold on and sticking a pin in the list. In my defence, my predictions were based on what I've seen, read and heard about these films as, to date, I have only seen one of the titles mentioned on this list (and you're unlikely to guess which one - let's just say it only received one nomination, in a lesser category, and didn't win).
Basically, what I'm saying is, I've got an excuse for this year but unless I watch a lot of films in 2016 I won't be trying this predictions lark again next year.
This stuff is a lot easier using a fast laptop...
Tracklisting:
If you like the sound of that lot, here's the download.
And yes, Morrissey will appear in all these podcasts.
Anyone who has read this will know how much importance I used to place on a good mixtape, and how much effort I put into them back in the day. And I miss those days. MP3 playlists are fine, I guess, but they're no substitute, for this boy at least.
Imagine my intrigue, then, on discovering Spreaker, courtesy of the always-excellent (New) Vinyl Villain and his Radio 236 experiment. Maybe I could create podcasts without words (no-one wants to listen to me), and in that way spoof the mixtapes of yore.
That was the idea, anyway. I dutifully downloaded the Spreaker software last night, but it's designed for large screens and I was working on a netbook, so that got ditched quite quickly. Instead, I just grabbed a handful of MP3s off the FiiO, fired up Audacity and stitched them together, as neatly as I could. In my defence, I was doing this between the hours of 1.15 and 1.45am, so I didn't spend any time at all trying to cross-fade tracks, and listening back to it this morning the outro/intro between tracks one and two is too long and quiet, unless you've got good headphones. More importantly, I didn't spend very long at all choosing or sequencing the tracks, so the result is not something I'd enter into my mixtape hall of fame. It's okay though, I think, and it nicely meets my target of being "one side of a C90". More than anything though, it's a technology test - this is my demo, if you like.
Anyway, that's the self-deprecation and excuses out of the way. Here's the podcast. I don't know if you're the sort of person who "does" podcasts. Maybe you are, and maybe you'll like this. If there's interest and/or positive feedback, I might take the time to do more, maybe one a month, and maybe loosely themed. We'll see.
If it helps you decide whether to listen, the track listing is:
If you like the sound of that lot, here's the download.
You're all familiar with the idea of "live" support on websites, right? The idea that you can type your question in a box and someone, somewhere in the world will reply? It's an increasingly popular customer engagement tool, and I sort of see the point, but the idea of having a "live" experience by typing some words in a box and having someone, somewhere, typing something back on the other side of the world and under an assumed name, well, that sort of gets my goat too. I know, I know, this could be my Grumpy Old Men audition piece.
I also can't help but wonder how much of it is real too. How many questions can be answered automatically, by some swank CRM software or artificial intelligence? So much do I wonder this that sometimes I just have to ask.
I especially like how all the boilerplate phrases have perfect spelling and punctuation, and as soon as "Emma" is required to go off-piste, well, all that good stuff goes to the dogs. I'm probably wrong about fancy AI behind live support chats, it's probably still cheaper to hire someone in a far-flung corner corner of the globe and call him "Emma" or "Summer" or "Kelly". But I'm probably right in thinking that they have a long list of stock phrases, ready to copy and paste into your conversation.
Something to bear in mind, next time live support leaves you feeling a beautiful and unique snowflake.
I will be changing jobs soon, not just role but employer. I've been in my current job for nearly eleven years, so I've got lots of sorting out to do before I go, both physical (going through shelves, files and drawers to apportion everything into either a "pass on", "take with" or "bin" pile) and virtual (my C drive and network share). It's taking an age - who knew eleven years of career stasis would entail the accumulation of so much stuff? But I am finding one or two interesting things - here's an example.
During the 2012 Olympics, the BBC's excellent online coverage was plastered with graphics making London look beautiful. Of course they were all overlaid with captions and logos, which spoiled the effect somewhat. However, I was sufficiently taken with the pictures to collate every one I could find, and cobble them together into a single text-less, logo-less version. Now I don't have Photoshop, and if you look carefully (and know what you're looking for) maybe you can see the joins. But anyway, this is the result.
I quite like it. I know London is not like that, outside of dramas like Spooks and Hotel Babylon. I know that the buildings don't all radiate reflected sunlight like that, and I know the landmarks seem disproportionate and preternaturally close together (the Beeb's doing, not mine). I know, I know, I know. It's just an idea of London, idealised and stylised, but I like it, and thought you might too.
Besides, now I've blogged it, I could move the file from the metaphorical "take with" pile to the "bin" pile. Though you'll have noticed I said could there, rather than can or will.
Footnote: +1 kudos point is on offer for identifying the song that gives this post its title.
So, hot on the tail of David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Glenn Frey, Colin Vearncombe and Dale Griffin goes Terry Wogan. That's quite a early-evening chat-show line up, right there.
I didn't listen to Terry Wogan on the radio until the very last years of his breakfast show, so most of my memories of him are television-based. I remember Kenny Everett bending Terry's wand mic on Blankety Blank (and no, that isn't prison talk). I remember George Best being too drunk for that early-evening chat show. I even remember Tel's moment of golfing glory, sinking what was then the longest televised putt in history. But most of all what I remember is from the very early days of Children In Need, when Joanna Lumley did a mini-striptease for Terry, all for a pledge from some punter or other. I would have been about thirteen at the time and, tame though this clip now seems, its effect on me at the time was profound, and lasts to this day as a crystal-clear memory.
Also, passing (literally) under the radar, Frank Finlay died on the same day as Terry. I mostly remember him as Porthos in Seventies films The Three Musketeers
