43. Bjorkers Grimm
Something occurred to me today: Bjork’s albums are childrens’ albums.

That’s not at all a criticism, either. I’ll be the first to defend anything immediately seen as “childish”; the looking-down-on of videogames tends to annoy me a great deal. Besides, childrens’ fiction, like the Harry Potter books or His Dark Materials or even a couple of Doctor Who New Series books are excellent yet intended for children. Or, to put it more accurately, excellent and intended for children.

I’m not trying to say that Bjork’s fanbase is made up of children, because I sincerely doubt that’s the case anyway. But there’s no reason why kids would hate Bjork, I feel (unless they dislike her voice), in the same way that they don’t dislike Charlie and the Chocolate Factory just because it’s directed by Tim “trust me, I’m a goth. No, really” Burton.

But I’ve been thinking a bit about the conceptual basis for Bjork’s albums – I do this often for all albums, because of my reviews (not that I do any anymore) – and it just struck me, round about when I remembered the video clip for that new song of hers. The one with the animated creatures and her face descending from the skies and singing, “We are the Earth invaders”. At least, that’s what she says from memory. It doesn’t matter what she says, really; it matters as to how she says it, and the “how” is, well, childlike. A childlike notion of evil. It’s not that children don’t understand evil on many a level, or that Bjork is a douchebrain, it’s just that it’s all very black and white (appropriately enough for the very black and white Bjork).

Other examples? Well, just look at her other video clips. You can’t watch ‘It’s Oh So Quiet’ and not tell me it wouldn’t work as a musical – and indeed, she later went on to do Dancer in the Dark, but whereas that may be more adult (I don’t know, I’m still yet to watch it), ‘It’s Oh So Quiet’ could very simply be Maria von Trapp mk II. And ‘Human Behaviour’ is one of the most childlike video clips I’ve ever seen... even the way it treats the bear and the woods is childlike (a sort of, “Let’s go down to the woods today”, dark Brothers Grimm feel. And yes, kids know those stories, remember?). Contrast that with the way the woods are represented in Radiohead’s ‘There There’ video clip, and it’s evident that Bjork is more overtly childlike, even in the expressions she makes whilst sitting at the table.

Obviously ‘Pagan Poetry’ doesn’t qualify because she’s nude, and ‘Hyperballad’ – even if a kiddie might not pick up on the meaning of it (keep in mind that I didn’t properly listen for ages myself) – may not be appropriate, but elsewhere... well, yes! The frostiness exhibited in Vespertine is no more complex or less complex than the icy feel of the ice levels in Croc 2 (and yes, as a kid, the soundtrack and such convinced me as to being the most icy ice levels I’ve ever played in a game), and ‘Big Time Sensuality’ would be a wonderful kids’ dance track (as would, of course, ‘It’s Oh So Quiet’).

But I really must experiment with this and see what kids think.

44. Lego Faction, and more
Mention of Star Wars Lego today - oh, the irony, I was actually thinking about writing about it (for reasons illustrated later) when walking to Nana and Keg’s, only for Jack to bring it up anyway (I’ve even managed to have two short conversations about Croc recently, barring my Journal, with [Singleton person] and Hannah and Jack) – prompts me to, well, mention it. First thing I have to get out of the way – it’s a pity Lawrence Miles doesn’t seem to have any feel for videogaming, because it’s such a natural fit that it hurts. Though Lego Faction Paradox would be an excellent game too.

Oh, and they’re making an Indiana Jones original trilogy Lego game. This amuses me, because I’m imagining certain scenes being transposed into a Lego environment. A guy gets sliced into little Lego bricks from a propeller. A guy rips a small red block from another guy’s chest. A kid has an even smaller Lego figure to do evil voodoo things with. And the idea of having Nazi Legos is just too good to miss. ACHTUNG, LEGO! should be the game’s catchphrase.

And speaking of which, I was tempted to – but I won’t, because my knowledge doesn’t extend too far in this area – list the Ultimate Misogynist Men list. I was going to list Hagar the Horrible, Nick Ashby and Han Solo. I’ve never understood how and why Leia succumbed to him, how and why it’s genuine love, and... though, to be fair, I myself wouldn’t know whether to choose Luke “I want to screw my sister” Skywalker or Han “I want to rape your sister” Solo.

Also, I like how these two main characters have names that point to their nature. In which case, considering Han Solo refers to flying solo and Skywalker to owning the galaxy (own as in, “OWN!” or “PWN!” Yeah, I know, I’m embarrassed about myself too at this point), what does Jabba the Hutt refer to? Does Darth Vader an “evader” of his fathering responsibilities? What about Kenobi (a pity it isn’t “Kenodi”, because then the bit about the death sticks in Attack of the Clones would be explained, as if Obi Wan had once watched his plastic friend Kenneth “Barbie’s husband” overdose)?

45. Interaction (continued)
Anyway. What was I going to talk about? Well, art. You know, that thing about art I mentioned a while ago, and had to stop talking about. Interactivity, and all that.

I’m not going to continue from where I left off, because I can’t be arsed talking about the religious side of things in regards to music. What I will get on to is videogaming.

The “it’s not art” one can be, in my opinion, broken down by the following, patronisingly simple, er, breakdown (completely lost the superior thread of creating a sentence there):

There exists something called “craft”.

There exists something called “art”.

At its simplest level, and I hope you don’t think I’m being patronising by explaining it if you already get it (just skip ahead. In fact, stop reading completely. It’s a shit Journal anyway), craft is useful for something, whilst art is just effectively entertainment. That’s about the size of it. A chair is craft, and a painting is art. That’s all well and simple.

‘Course, it’s never that simple. After all, an artist (postmodern, the buggers) can stick a chair in the middle of an art gallery and claim it’s art now (and no, I’m not objecting to the fact that they can do that; I’m objecting to the fact that some artists think that doing so is inherently clever). And yes, it is, because the context has changed; after all, no-one touches paintings (unless they’re naughty barstards), and therefore no-one’s going to sit on this chair, not even a very tired and very drunk guard.

I nearly wrote “shit on this chair”. That’d probably make it even more artistic, though you’d lose a fair portion of the audience, I suspect.

Point is... well, it’s not so easily identifiable as to what’s art and what’s not. Basically it comes down to whether people treat it as being art or not (as being craft), in the same way that our general consensus on whether, say, murder is wrong is based on the fact that people treat it as being wrong. Most of them.

So the craft is the paintbrush, the palette, and the finished work is the art.

Except it also isn’t when it’s transposed into filmed art that can be played at a gallery. A documentary on Jackson Pollock isn’t art, but if an artist films themselves painting and throws that in an art gallery, then it’s art because it’s treated as such. In that sense, the craft is no longer the paintbrush or palette or canvas; since the art itself even encompasses how the artist themselves moves and operates and creates, then the craft has changed. The craft is now the VHS, or the VCD, or the DVD or whatever it’s on, and it’s the TV, or the computer, or whatever you’re watching it on.

That’s not as silly as it may sound either, because performance art means that every bit of the performance is part of the art even if that wasn’t the case yonks ago, in the same way that music is considered a part of the film even though yonks ago silent films meant the music had to be played externally and wasn’t actually part of it – a separate, accompanying performance, if you will.

Now here’s where it gets a tad subjective. If the previous bit is hard to dispute (at least, I’m assuming it is; if anyone can come up with a great counterargument, tell me), then this next bit is. Whether videogames are art fundamentally come down to one thing: whether you consider film and music “art”.

It’s very difficult to nail this down, too. After all, I’m basically extending the word “art” to mean just about everything that fits under “entertainment”, and the obvious question is therefore, “Why not just call it entertainment?” I can’t really explain this myself very well because I’m not sure (other than that it feels right, but that’s obviously just subjective), other than to say that entertainment is, to me, the word that sums up everything involved. Dodgy though this explanation may be, I sort of feel that, say, the DVD that Mulholland Drive is on is the craft, and Mulholland Drive is the art, and together they form the entertainment. I know, I know, and I haven’t even integrated “medium” into the mix yet (though hopefully that should be obvious; film, album, art are all their own media, even if they cross over at points), but it’s the best I can come up with. It’s either that, or scrap the word “entertainment” altogether in regards to films and such – you don’t use the word “entertainment” when talking about albums. That’s the problem with the word anyway; “entertainment” is something that entertains, so it’s hard to say why an album won’t be found under the “entertainment” banner at a shop, or a cup and ball for that matter. Again, it comes down to what people treat as entertainment.

But here’s the best I can come up with, if we’re using the word “entertain” to explain what “entertainment” is; Hamish Macbeth may be boring as a piece of art, but it’s pretty good entertainment. But crucially, it’s both, even if it’s not equally good at being both. So when a film is considered “arty”, I take that to mean not that it’s art and other films aren’t, but that it’s overtly more on the art end of the scale than the entertainment. But really, you can’t have one without the other, it’s just a matter of emphasis. And sometimes you have great mixes of the two, of course; 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining may be beautiful, but they’re also great entertainment. The best of their kind tend to be a successful acknowledgement of both parts of their own sum.

46. In Terms of Gaming…
Ironically, videogaming actually makes this distinction between “art” and “entertainment” more, well, distinct. Because whilst art is heavily involved in videogaming, there’s always entertainment. It’s not a videogame if you can’t play it, and therefore there’s always an “entertainment” factor, insofar as what constitutes that anyway. So that’s pretty much a given. But what about videogaming in regards to being art?

Well, it is, yes. There’s elements in many games that overtly speak out as being “arty” at times, but I reckon that a videogame character flashing red when hurt is in itself art – use of colour to convey something to the audience. It’s obviously a lot less ambiguous (and you could perhaps say that having a game booklet that explains what this means ruins it in the same way that it does for postmodern artworks on gallery walls, but a) different rules apply and b) no-one reads the bloody things anyway), but it’s still art. It still signifies something, speaks to the audience.

But again, videogaming confuses people on the issue of it being considered an art medium, because as well as making distinct “art” and “entertainment” as being part of the same package, it also does the same, albeit by blurring the distinction, between “art” and “craft” even further. Because although having a PS2 is no more or less craft than having a DVD player, what is is the control pad as opposed to the DVD remote. You don’t really use a DVD remote when watching a film, but you certainly have to use a controller when playing videogames, otherwise very little will happen. So the craft actually drives the art in a way it really hasn’t before: as in, it always has (paintbrushes create colours) but not in this way. This is an example of audience interactivity. That’s the difference between videogaming and every other art form, I feel.

So the controller is craft, the disc is craft, the console is craft. Pressing buttons on the controller is part of the craft. But it’s what those buttons realise on the screen that makes it art. It’s the bit where the signal runs from the controller to the game that it stops being craft and starts being art, as a command to an arm in the brain at some point, very very very very very bloody quickly, becomes arm movement. Actions and reactions, and all that, except in this case it’s an example of quickly changing form. So whilst the audience is heavily involved in what’s happening on screen, they’re very much separate from it; the screen is the art and the audience is isolated from it. In that way, the way you click a few buttons is not part of “performance art” or anything; it’s not art. The videogame itself, and what you realise in it, is.

But what about in regards to the videogame developers themselves? Who is considered the “artists”, and who is considered the “craftsmen”? Well, that’s a difficult question, and it comes down to who you consider to be the “artists” of film and the “craftsmen” of it. Whilst both work on it, one is obviously concerned with the “art” element of the piece of art itself, whilst another is concerned with the “entertainment” element of it (this isn’t as specific in film, but it certainly is in gaming, I think). The guys who program in the code that allows a player to act in the game are craftsmen, the guys who write the story or direct it or write the music or other things are artists. Difficult distinction to make at some points – after all, a person could program in a code that makes a character suddenly do something very artistic – but that doesn’t mean that we should abandon the “art” idea purely because it’s hard to define exactly. Keep in mind that everything is hard to define exactly, including words themselves, and therefore it again comes down to a consensus of sorts. That mystical consensus I keep talking about. Don’t ask me where it came from, though – generations ago, it probably just did happen.

Anyway. I should point out that “graphics” don’t immediately constitute the “art” element of the game anyway. For a start, there’s music and storytelling and voice work (performance) and sound effects. And, so important, direction. But whilst there’s a constant scramble for better and better graphics realised on consoles in the console race, getting as photorealistic as possible, that doesn’t mean videogaming is progressively becoming more and more “art”. As I said before, film was silent, and we don’t hold that against it. It’s just a progression, and it doesn’t exclude anything of origin. Graphics were there to serve the gameplay originally, it’s true, and games like Pacman and Super Mario Brothers and Tetris may be iconic in their own right, but they’re not “arty”. The art is there to serve the entertainment, not be the be all end all.

But again, that doesn’t mean anything really. Take Kubrick; his camerawork is rarely flashy, and if anything he often favours single shots for a period of time that most directors today wouldn’t even consider – Liam had it down as being bad on his Directing Manifesto, something I always thought wrong but just couldn’t prove it. But he’s now watched A Clockwork Orange and The Shining, and he amended this himself over the phone to me before I remembered to say something about it. The whole purpose of the camerawork is not to throw the viewer out of the story, to have them absorbed in the artwork as if they’re genuinely there. It’s very easy, then, to draw parallels between that and the fact that “early” games are incredibly addictive. Because it was about the graphics and gameplay working in conjunction with each other, and the standout games are a successful, iconic amalgamation of both.

I really, though, don’t understand why someone would consider a black square art, but not Pong. Or why someone could say Kubrick and Hitchcock are brilliant directors, but find the idea of a videogame director like, say, Hideo Kojima, being one of the best directors ever in league with those greats, a silly idea. Or, if we’re limiting it to Japan, Kojima is just as brilliant (and often, if you think about it, similar in ways) as Satoshi Kon. That’s bloody brilliant, especially considering videogames are still technically in their infancy/puberty (the state of videogaming now has been compared to ‘30s Hollywood, and I feel once the scramble for better graphics is largely satisfied, gaming will become far more about the experience itself than the processing power).

47. In the End…
There’s one basic flaw with my whole argument here, and it’s one I’ve brought up myself. Indeed, it looks like I’m contradicting myself, and in a way I am. It’s the “people treat it as such” argument. Because videogaming generally isn’t treated as art, and therefore, by those terms, it isn’t.

True. But with that in mind, there’s a very simple reason why I’m happily able to state that videogames are art and older people aren’t. Simply, because I grew up surrounded by them. Therefore, I’m at ease with them. I know this is sort of the “old people don’t get technology” argument, but it’s rather just something that a) they either haven’t considered or b) reject because it’s not something they grew up thinking. Which is of course impossible, because it wasn’t around.

So I’m going to treat videogames as art, and I hope others do, and I guess we’ll just wait for the rest of the world to catch up. And it will catch up. One day.

48. Gay as a Dodo
In a recent 3dmm debate about homosexuality, resident idiot Compcat kept on trying to say that being gay isn’t beneficial to a species. Of course, he was very quickly shot down by Andres (who’s studying biology) and others about it “beneficial to a species” no longer being relevant, as a concept, to humans – but I’d like to raise the question of whether dolphins and dogs are going to die out very soon, before other animals, because of their occasional rampant sexuality. Indeed, I started to ponder the dodos and whether they died because mankind introduced homosexuality to them (as opposed to a disease or something. Actually, Compcat equated homosexuality to a disease, so there you are).

Unfortunately though, I don’t think that can be right; because if there’s anything that the Dodo ads prove, it’s that they in fact liked being surrounded by bikini-clad bimbos.

(Why is Australia represented like that in the ad anyway? And why do we have “Dodo” internet? And since when do dodos fly? Is this company just trying to break the all-time record for “most blatant and prolific lies in an ad campaign”?)

49. Digi-Know?
Pokemon Crystal: A punk biker is called “Dwayne”. No wonder he struck out against the world.

Actually, I was wondering many things when playing that game. Why does a sailor wish to battle during his lunchbreak, and would he not go to work if the battle dragged on for ages? Why haven’t the game programmers, after all of these games and modifications, bothered to make the Nurse Joys all different (I know it’d be a break with continuity. I also don’t care)? How the hell did Misty get a date? Why do Suicune, Entei and Raikou hang out, considering they’re all dangerously super effective against each other? Why doesn’t Red talk when you fight him (I know, he’s Red. But considering the continuity ties in with the TV series hugely, shouldn’t he be an arrogant, idiotic cock like Ash?)? Why do Team Rocket members tell you the passwords to open their locked chambers; it’s not like you’re going to threaten to kill them, and even if you did, would Lance really condone that sort of behaviour? Why don’t the girls at Celadon gym ring up Officer Jenny to rid them of that perve out the front (he’ll probably die on those steps, with a peaceful and perverted look of joy)? Similarly, why hasn’t anyone arrested Brock yet? Why do kids like wearing high shorts? If the test in the Dragon’s Den is incredibly easy and the guy feigns deafness when you give a wrong answer, why has no-one else – even gym leader Claire – passed it before? And on that note, why haven’t the game programmers actually taken into account how you play; you constantly hear of how your character knows love of your Pokemon whereas other characters don't, but wouldn’t it be awesome if the game itself watched you and decided whether you were loving or a hard-pushing arsehole to your Pokemon? And why does Emerald work on my DS/GBA emulator but not VBA, even though every other ROM works on VBA? Is this death? Are there 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one? What’s the meaning of liff? And finally, why does Ash thinking that turning his hat backwards is cool?

And that’s not even going into the TV series’ logic. Pikachu is at an indeterminable level (he must be about 85 by now, surely). Pokemon often have more than four moves. Pokemon sometimes evolve for reasons other than they should do. And then there’s the first movie; how the hell does a Squirtle beat Machamp with Bubble, how come Bulbasaur charges a Solarbeam and illegally fires it without Donphan getting in a move first, and how come the guy sends out three Pokemon against Pikachu – three! – yet Pikachu beats them all, even a Golem?

I’ve tried the gym leader tactics that Ash uses, as well. Use electricity on Brock’s Onyx! Ah, didn’t work. Okay, how about setting fire to Erika’s gym and rescuing her from it (or rescuing her from the dirty old man)? Hmm, no, can’t do that. I know! I’ll show Sabrina my Haunter during battle and she’ll laugh and give me a badge! Oh, no she won’t; she’ll just attack it. Looks like she’s over the joke now. To be fair though, I was over it, immediately.

Also, who is Ash’s father, and why does Gary not have any parents? Does his sister just sit in the house all day and give people Town Maps and haircuts? Doesn’t she ever get out and have a life? Or has Gary imprisoned her there? And why does Gary – sorry, “Blue” – seem to favour a Lego motif for the Viridian gym?

And why didn’t it let me join Team Rocket back in Red? I so badly wanted to join them! Mind you, seeing as it’s impossible to steal someone’s Pokemon in battle, I find it difficult to understand how Team Rocket manage it. Even Mewtwo had to use his utmost ingenuity in the movie just to work around that. Though he did work for them at one point, so maybe he helped them there, with a prototype or something.

50. Additional
Additional – and yes I’m referencing Red Dwarf there: Scrolling down my Journal very quickly, I noticed that I described Blue Hone as “James Bond meets Jonathan Creek”. Although I meant it a teensy bit more complicated-like than most “creative” types would, I’m happy to admit that it means I was, a year ago, one of them. Gasp, horror.

“Jonathan Bond”, though. Don’t tell me it doesn’t have potential.

Actually, it sounds like someone who’d host Bargain Hunt.

51. Dragon, Dragon, Sell the Dragon!
Just realised – and I had to write this in (in a new entry, to not break that last [crappy] joke) – that I mentioned a typically dull British show, and then decided that “Bond”, being to do with business, would be a better person to have on Dragon’s Den. And then I remembered that I’d already talked about the other Dragon’s Den. So now I’m wondering why, after you answer all of the questions correctly, you aren’t immediately offered a million dollars.

Dragon's Den, for those not in the know – that’d be everyone with better things to do than watch dull UKTV shows during the holidays, then – is a show where a person is sent into a room of five or so millionaires to sell them an idea, so that they can start backing your project in some capacity or other. What amuses me is that, as well as the usual types – near-bald bloke with glasses, chubby but athletic looking bloke, stern red-haired woman – there’s a guy who looks like... well, actually, I was going to say “the millionaire version of David Tennant”, but didn’t Tennant sign a million dollar contract for Series Four? In which case, that’s not true.

God, a million. When someone on Doctor Who, of all things, is capable of getting a million, it’s a wakeup call to how many millions are out there. Which is frankly disturbing. It’s distressing enough realising that there are a select few people in the world who have millions whilst everyone else doesn’t; it’s even more distressing realising that that “select few” is made up of many, many, many people. It’s like saying, “there’s millions of grains of sand on a beach, isn’t that huge?” and then remembering just how many beaches there are around the world.

“A million” is basically the minimum for getting any successful film off the ground, too. God.

That bit before about beaches made me think of –

LIFE’S A BEACH.

God, sorry; momentarily possessed by the soul of a cod philosopher.

...I was about to make a joke concerning them genuinely being that, since they have the mental capabilities to only think for 4 seconds (and therefore be like fish), but realised that making a pun on “cod” would make me no better than the idiot who came up with James Pond 2: Robocod. So I won’t (and yet sort of just did).

52. Silly Sister’s Quote of the Day V. Going into Nina’s room, I’ve had the opportunity to peek at her desk, and found her weekly calendar thing there. On it she’s written many things, such as “going to movies at 1:30. Went to movies at 1:30.” and all manner of things that I shy away from writing, by and large, in this blog because it’s, by and large, boring. What amuses me is that she still talks in a Myspace/MSN sort of way, so she’ll say “Went and saw a movie XD Lol.” Or better yet, “He’s hot. Nahhhh Lol.”

So... what is the point of writing the “Lol”, or the “XD”? Is there some sort of joke involved that I haven’t spotted, or is it just a weird habit? I mean, who’s she sharing the joke with? The obvious question that’s begging to be answered is, “Who’s going to read that?”, and the obvious answer that’s begging to be heard is, “Well, me, ‘cos I’m a nosy twat”. But I doubt she intended me to read it – in the same way that I’m annoyed that she read my Journal ages ago and started going on about “Amanda, ooohhh” as if it was a big thing (which of course I made it up to be in said Journal). But actually, that’s a point; text is so dry that I could say something’s a crime against humanity and could be taken seriously, even if I’m only half-serious. As in, I’m deliberately exaggerating, but I still have a point to make about said thing’s awfulness.

Maybe that’s the reason behind the “Lol” and all that? After all, I’ve found – talking to Kate Steinberg, and occasionally others – that one of my faults on MSN is, and I do this because I’m a pedantic obsessed-with-language sod (who curiously writes “barstard” instead of “bastard”, but never mind), writing properly. By not adding “lol” and other things, half of the time Kate wasn’t aware of when I was joking, and that was sort of a problem. So maybe the usage of “Lol” so often is overcompensation, a way of saying “I’m fun-loving and always joking, never take me seriously”.

It still looks stupid, though.

53. Silly Sister’s Ferocious Friend’s Quote of the Day. One of Nina’s friends has a Myspace with an “About Me” sort of thing that had me laughing for ages. It went something like, “Hi, I’m __, and I like this and that, and it’s a beautiful day outside, and I’m not emo, and I hate those bitches. FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU. Those bitches who think they own the place.” That’s paraphrasing, of course, but the gist of it is that she just started swearing for no real reason.

But the funniest thing is her assertion that she’s not emo, when she basically is from that writing, she has an emo hairstyle, and the band playing on her Myspace is Panic! at the Disco. Who also, if I remember rightly, denied that they were emo.

54. Shamptherapy
I love how my aunt’s shampoo bottle – Pantene, naturally (Helga’s? Naturally not!) – says “Colour Therapy”. That immediately made me think of colours finding themselves scrutinised by shrinks.

“I’m feeling angry today. Rage, fury. But also passion, romance, seduction.”
“Ah. So I gather you’re feeling blue?”
“What are you talking about? I’m Red, you idiot.”
“Ah. I do beg your pardon.”

Funny that I should talk about Red and Blue considering my rekindled Pokemon playing phase.
And yes, it’s my aunt’s shampoo, because I don’t have my own and can’t be arsed buying my own, and she’s not here to use it. So there.

31. Sit and Sarcastic COMMUTER
Pedantry time, but also I’m-interested time, because I’m about to talk about this Find a Word thing.

Nothing interesting, you should know, but hey.

See, it’s called “Sit & Solve COMMUTER”. I find this odd, because the only time I’ve been a genuine commuter was in my brief spiel in Sydney working for Nett# magazine, but it’s interesting reading at times, because some of the words used are just bizarre. Particularly because it’s an American book - as is evidenced by times when it has a page on “Fictional Millionaires” and basically list only American pop culture examples (Richie Rich [god forbid], Mr Burns).

Each puzzle has a theme that’s determined by the title. So, say, “On the Train and Bus” is pretty self-explanatory. It’s got words such as “backpack” and “overhead rack” (yes, the number of times I’ve wanted to torture myself on the way to work is many).

Some of the phrases in this one get me, though. “Standees”. I presume that means people who stand around waiting for transport. “Peak period”, as opposed to peak hour. The best is “cell yell”, which is simply brilliant. The next time someone talks too loudly on a phone, I’m going to call them a cell yeller. Even though we don’t call them cellphones here. Maybe I could call them a docile mobile.

In the Java Jive section, I’ve stumbled across “cup o’Joe”, which is one of those American phrases I’ve always meant to find the origin behind but keep forgetting to do so. It may be linked to the “average Joe” idea, meaning “anyone can drink coffee!”. ‘Course, coming from the country where Starbucks originated, it wouldn’t surprise me if that was a continually used phrase.

In the All the News that Fits section, one of the entries is “Man Bites Dog”. It’s obviously meant to be a joke, but, um, hmm.

In the Think “Inc.” section, we have words such as “Grinch”, “Lincoln”, “Loincloth”, “Mince”, “Nincompoop” and “Quince”. Sorry... does anyone use these words in a business meeting? If I was at a meeting where someone proposed cutting back on Christmas consumerism, would I call them a Grinch? If someone suggested a staff outing to the theatre, would I consider them a Lincoln?

Yes, yes, “mince words”. I know. But it still seems out of place.

In the Bagel Break section, for some reason, “marble” is one of the words. Do business people in America really play marbles whilst eating lunch?

At the Train Station (section), you can expect to hear “muzak”.

The Why We Do It section is a bizarre one. I was looking for some great insights, or at the very least many different synonyms for the word “money” (as it stands, “legal tender”, “moolah”, “dough”, “bucks”, “cash”, “almighty dollar”, “income” and weirdly enough “simoleons” all made the list). I didn’t expect “lettuce” and “clams”, though. I suspect these are other words for money, like “bread” is, but lettuce? Lettuce? I know it’s green, but do many people really enjoy lettuce like they enjoy bread? Or clams, for that matter? Surely this isn’t universal enough to be a proper synonym for money, which everyone - don’t lie now - enjoys?

“Do-re-mi” is the strangest one, though. Perhaps it’s conjuring up an image of someone singing in the streets after being paid. Perhaps it’s another synonym for money. If so, Maria von Trapp is a corporate whore and I’m glad the Nazis got to her.

In the RR Crossing section (which appears to not really have a theme, it’s just vague words with “r” starting both. A bit like R + R, I spose), “Ray Romano” is listed alongside “Ronald Reagan”. Hmm. Should we really be putting them in the same category? Then again, I don’t know if Everybody Loves Reagan.

There’s also “rough riders”, which sounds horribly rude.

Sorry I’m Late is an interesting one, because it includes excuses that you’d never get away with. “Hangover”, “missed bus”, “overslept”. Things that are entirely the excuse-finding person’s fault. Maybe this is to show some level of responsibility. Maybe it’s just a bunch of idiotic excuses. I’m assuming, too, that the excuse “leak” refers to a car leak, not “Sorry I’m late sir, I just needed to take a piss”.

In Office Seeking, we have “hump day”. I really must research what this is, and make plans for its immediate establishment in the Australian workplace.

I love Time Sheet, because it includes words that nobody in the business world would ever consider using in a meeting or office environment. I can easily swallow “minute”, “moment”, “present” and “hour”, as well as “future”, but... “epoch”? “Big hand”? “Tick-tock”? “Sundial”? “Fourth dimension”? Fourth bloody dimension. Only if we were The Office in Space, love (that is, Hyperdrive). ‘Sides, based on the evidence of that Gold-Coast-theme-park-I-don’t-remember-which-one, business types don’t care what the word really means and just use it because it sounds cool, as they use it to mean “you’re watching a movie in 3D and you get sprayed with water”.

They also thought the alethiometer/golden compass in The Golden Compass was actually a compass, leading to a ridiculous Hungry Jacks’ ad.

I’ve Been Working on a Railroad is a cute, sensitised look at ye olde way of working the American way, but I doubt any commuters would really give a toss about this when going to work. Who wants to think about “banjo” when your iPod is playing?

The S&P is another example of fishing around for stuff like the RR Crossing one was, and whilst it includes “safety pin”, “stamp pad”, “stock price” and “sports page”, it curiously also lists “space probe”, “snake pit”, “silly putty” and “Sean Penn”. Though maybe I’m just being too pedantic; for all I know, Americans on the way to work may indeed watch, on their portable DVD players, a movie starring Sean Penn space re-enacting Raiders of the Lost Ark with Flubber.

Working Dogs is a section that takes the “we’re made to work like dogs” (dogs don’t work all that often though, I find) thing to its extreme, and just lists a bunch of breeds. Sort of makes me wonder though what am I as a worker; am I a “boxer”, a “collie”, a “Doberman”, a “German shepherd”, a “husky”, a “mastiff”, a “schnauzer”, or am I a “St Bernard”?

Liam’s a saint, though, because he’s the lead singer of the Saints. Chortle.

Happy Hour is great, because amongst “pub”, “stool”, “tavern” (we’re getting all medieval, are we?), “wine”, “drinks” and “bartender”, we have “napkin”. Ooh, so upper-class, happy hour is.

Funny how Vacation Spots includes “London” amidst the “Bahamas” and “Disney World”, as if London isn’t a place full of rushing, mad, businesspeople. You get away from work only to see other people working. Which, I must say, is probably quite nastily satisfying.

And finally (said like the guys from Pro Evo 2), Quitting Time is full of different ways of saying goodbye; that is, goodbye in many different languages. But it also includes “Godspeed”, which could lead to many brilliant music injokes. Or not. Not really, no. Only one at best, and it wouldn’t be very funny. Still, I’d be happy.

32. Interaction
Liam’s likely to be here soon, so realistically I have about six minutes to chat about this. Chat - you know, informal conversation, rather than rant. Bah, who am I kidding.

This probably won’t be a full-on rant thingy considering the time I have left, but I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently: the audience.

As in, how they interact with a piece.

It seems that the audience has more and more creative control over music, which could also be one of the reasons why music is often so stagnant and dull when it’s liked. I mean, you could argue that much respected classical musicians nowadays were, at the time, catering to their audiences, but... they sort of weren’t. At least, Mozart certainly wasn’t, and it took a while before people really started to get into his stuff. Up until then, the appreciation for Mozart had been largely from other musicians who saw him as a genius.

But audience is important, at least, in terms of the progression of music. I mean, for one, musical evolution really only truly happens if there’s a mass of people who, over the decades, get into the stuff that the progressing musicians have taken for granted/are leaving behind in a trail of dust. Nothing wrong with either, mind, that’s just the way it is. But also, the audience has become an integral part of music in a lot of ways. We’ve gone from them applauding - as is mandatory: it’s almost like a musical idea that every classical composer wants to hear at the end of one of their performances, as if it’s part of the cultural juggernaut at the time; and indeed it was - to cheering - as is basically mandatory as well: again, it’s like a musical idea that every live band integrates into their music (except Nickelback, because no-one apparently wanted to cheer them on). When a conductor says, “Hold your applause to the end of the piece”, he isn’t really just asking for quiet during the piece, he’s also making sure the audience claps; and generally, such is the communication between composer and audience as to what is the end that the claps will break out seconds after the piece ends. Now, when a rock musician yells, “I can’t hear you!” and incites noises from the audience, well, it’s the audience helping the musician kick along (even though I cringe at it, because it sounds lame). More integrated still is when the musicians in question incite the audience to sing and/or clap along at the end, which sounds simple, but is a very obvious example as to how music has progressively embraced its audience (and I’m talking since the medieval period, not since the dawn of man; after all, it’s not recorded, but anyway, music would have been central to certain rites and rituals the peoples in question performed. And, I’m also being Western-centric here, mainly because I still know little about the progression of Eastern music).

Indeed, the progression of religious music says much the same thing; whilst Gregorian chanting was incredibly important in the medieval period, I’ve only found one priest nowadays who actually bothers to do it in church in front of a clergy. And, just as changing the text from Latin to English meant people could understand it, the increasing compositions of church music incites the audience to participate. It’s not just a means of communication between God and the parish; it’s a means of communication between the priest and his audience. Like his standup sermon act is, really.

Then you’ve got, lest we forget, Christian rock, and all of those big events like Harvest which deliberately incite the audience to participate in the same way that live bands do now.

‘Course, the difference is very simple; Christian music doesn’t deserve full audience participation, because the originator of the message isn’t there. In classical days, clapping after a show allowed the composer to stand up and bow, appreciating his efforts. Now that it’s quite possible for a band to just play all of their instruments and sample others on stage, the audience participation is immediately far greater.

[TO BE CONTINUED]

33. 2008
New Year’s resolutions? Well, unfortunately, they’re so already-assured as to be pointless. For example: release Sensiship and Kiarna EP. Get a job. Do well in Uni. All three really quite easily achievable (yeah, I know I stuffed Uni this year, but that won’t be a problem next year). So, pointless.

Maybe if I set myself something impossible like, say, climb Mt Everest, or have sex.

34. t.A.R.d.i.s.
I watched Doctor Who: ‘Voyage of the Damned’, though, and one thing that interests me is, of course, the fact that Kylie had been cast. In the wake of Billie Piper too, that means a trend of singers-turned-actors have... well, actually, that’s false; both started out as actors, were thrust openly into music, and... well, both do acting now, but it’s more a thing for Billie than Kylie, who’s happy to just sing along. But as far as the public are concerned, they’re singers-turned-actors. I mean, who’d know Kylie was in Neighbours? Who the hell watches that?

Oh, that’s right, a fair few people. Particularly Brits. People tend to refer to “Charlene’s Wedding” as one of those defining Neighbours moments (insofar as there are any, though I spose this one proves something about the programme. Fill in your own disparaging discourse on what this would be), so obviously she’s known a fair bit for that. Plus, absolutely everyone watched Street Fighter.

But in the wake of that pattern of sorts, though, and the casting of Catherine “You all know that damn catchphrase” Tate, I’m wondering what other British celebrities/minor celebrities could be cast, or indeed from other sectors of the world.

So I introduce the top candidates for future companions:

1) Holly Valance. She’d be wonderful because if the Doctor tried to kiss her (he kissed Kylie twice, I should point out), she’d just say “Down boy” whilst hypocritically rubbing up other women to get him aroused. Like telling a country to back out of war by bombing their government building. And there could be wonderful gags worked around the TARDIS, such as how she keeps trying to use the outside phone to call 1800-Reverse.

2) t.A.T.u. The two controversial Russian pseudo-lesbian “we don’t believe in sexuality” paedophile-loved pop girls. Automatically, that’s a winning combination for a set of companions. They could constantly be caught in the TARDIS in suspicious positions, which they pass off as “we’re not gay, honestly... see, we’re married and have babies! My nude photoshoot whilst pregnant should prove that!” They could be apt in a chase situation, confidently yelling at the Doctor of the Daleks, “They’re not gonna get us!” They could also run into battlefields and, whilst the Doctor gives a big speech on the right of humanity to live and prosper and to not fight, the girls can summarise with their eloquent t-shirts saying naught but “FUCK WAR” in Russian.

Which leads me nicely into...

3) Mischa Barton. Who would also spend her time feeling up as many women as she could (hmm, detecting a theme here, are you?). In this case, though, we could introduce her over-the-top conservative Christian fundamentalist parents, who spend their time not frowning on the fact that she’s saving the universe, but on the fact that she’s snogging girls. And that she was in The OC.

4) Scary Spice. Ms Mel (not that Mel; Mel R, I’m going to call her) would be a very useful asset to the TARDIS team. With her kick-arse attitude and tattoos, and her desire to be recognised despite everyone liking her the least of the Spice Girls – even less than the other Mel that no-one even remembers very well – would make her a determined, feisty companion.

5) Baby Spice. True to her name though, she should genuinely be a baby. The Doctor is required to breastfeed her regularly. Luckily, she’s able to randomly pull weapons from her behind back, as if she was starring in Worms 2.

6) Linda Blair. Whatever happened to the Beast in ‘The Satan Pit’, you wonder? Well, turns out he travelled back in time to the 70’s, via Devil’s End, and found himself possessing a cute and slightly annoying young American girl named Reagan. Not even the Master can control this fearsome child of evil (who curiously resembles a similar girl in ‘Fear Her’), and the Doctor constantly finds her shoving a sonic screwdriver up her vagina, yelling, “Let Rassilon fuck you!” She also vomits all over enemies, is able to walk like a spider, talk in reverse (Holly Valance could perhaps do this too, though) and, best of all, confusedly decide that “cunting” is a real adjective.

(Speaking of Spice Girls, the recent picture of them reformed actually shows Posh Spice pulling a very Reagan expression. It’s disturbing, but finally everything makes sense; I mean, how else could you be compelled to marry Beckham unless you were the devil himself?)

7) Larisa Oleynik. A girl who can transform into a puddle (like a Time Lord after death; so it turns out she’s eventually Romana), who can zap people with electricity, and who can move things with her psychic powers. Her best power, though, is her insanely frequently changing hat wardrobe, which spews out a new one every scene. She can sing ‘Greensleeves’, too.

8) Denise Richards. Like Trix, Richards would make the ultimate master (mistress?) of disguise, being able to slip into any different persona and character equally well. In other words, not at all. But the next Christmas special could have Martha and work in numerous “Christmas Jones” jokes, and it can be about woods populated by creatures from that book Wild Things. Er... hmm. Perhaps I’m deliberately confusing things here. I admit, I am.

9) The Hooked Lion Doctor from Rocko’s Modern Life. Not only is she incredibly useful in a medical emergency, she’s also endlessly cheerful, like Mel. Wait, that’s a good thing? But you’d have to worry after having an operation performed by her because, based on two bits of past evidence, your organs are likely to start existing in a sentient form and stalk the Earth, possibly becoming Godzilla sized and destroying things. Indeed, the next aliens-invade-London story should be about the Doctor’s tooth from ‘The Gunfighters’ becoming enlarged and stomping all over Westminster Bridge.

By the way, there’s a house near me with lions that look much like those on the London bridge-that-refuses-to-fall-down (Westminster, I believe). Every time I pass them, I feel like waving my arm upwards in a sucker salute.

10) Christina Cole. Though I’d have to wonder about what she could play. Wait – I know – a witch! That’ll challenge her as an actress.

11) The Clumsy Girl from Worst Witch. The female Neville; she’d be wonderfully dumb, yet with a sweet, big heart. Which means she just fails sweetly. Twit.

12) Beth Cordingly. Again, I’d have to wonder what she could... of course, a prostitute! That’s original.

35. Perfect Blue
I’ve just finished watching Perfect Blue, a much respected and acclaimed anime film (from what I’ve read). It reminded me of Mulholland Drive in its weird postmodern way of looking at the film industry, and it’s rated, in its own niche way (anime being still a niche in Western culture), as highly as Mulholland Drive. Yeah, as much as a Lynch film.

I liked it better. In fact, I LOVED it.

I won’t go on about it, because I don’t really wish to spoil anything, but I will say why I watched it in the first place (or downloaded it). Well, actually, one reason is because recently I’ve become obsessed with tracking down every acclaimed film, television series and anime (and one day I’ll branch out to games, and albums will come in to, and I’ll pore over art too at some stage. Then architecture. I have to progress somehow) and getting this was a part of it. But it was actually Liam (who, he informed me today, is his favourite LD Productions character – that is, the Liam that I talk about in my Journal is his favourite because it makes him laugh) who perked the interest with... well, I hesitate to say an “it’s-like-such-and-such” recommendation, but that’s what it was.

As you know (I think... maybe I haven’t whinged on about that yet), I tend to have an external twitch of rage whenever something is praised for being “something meets something!” or “the best film since something”. It’s only alright when it’s, say, “The Office in space!” to describe Hyperdrive; in other words, I don’t mind it being used as a derogatory thing, but to praise something for being like something else makes me raise an eyebrow a tad (even if I’m probably guilty of occasionally doing so myself; I liked, for instance, the A Silver Mt Zion debut CD because it sounds very Godspeed).

But anyway, THIS one was alright, because when Liam said the following:

“It’s like This Town Will Never Let Us Go.”

...he didn’t actually mean it was full of people wearing paradoxical fashion, or being about a town keeping people in, or about bombs. He meant that Perfect Blue shares an obsession with the concept of “image”, particularly in regards to pop stars. In This Town, although that’s my favourite arc of all of the characters, it’s only really one of them; in Perfect Blue, it drives the film, is realised in a quite different way (Tiffany from This Town didn’t have a stalker), and, well, yeah. It was just excellent.

It went right up my alley actually (this alley will never... er, sorry), because currently I’ve being having thoughts about image as well. Not really in regards to myself, although I must say that the sudden appearance of Newcastle rockers Vaudeville has put a bit of strain on my own personal – or rather, Vaudewraith’s – image. But no, it’s mainly because of t.A.T.u., who, you may have noticed, have been getting a lot of mentions in this blog recently, almost out of the (perfect) blue.

36. Perfect t.A.T.u.
Thing is – as I think I said earlier – I had no idea of the background controversies to them. Indeed, as I didn’t really pay much attention to it, I thought the controversy was purely about them being lesbians. As it turns out, they aren’t (well, sort of), and the controversy also centred around the massive objectification of them, particularly from their “Hey, jump in my bed and I’ll give you a career!” manager.

What interests me about this upcoming film – Finding t.A.T.u. – then, is that it seems the plot will revolve around two fans of the band rather than the band itself; and it’ll be about two girls who, from what I can gather and/or guess, find the strength to come out because of t.A.T.u., only to feel betrayed when the duo reveal they’re not really lesbian.

I mean, this happened in real life; a large proportion of their fanbase, which was indeed gay, felt horribly betrayed by this. Even (what I gather to be) a later amendment that they don’t really consider “sexuality” to be a “real thing” (quote: Youtube commenter*) didn’t lessen the blow, I reckon, and if anything it just muddies the water even more. If you aren’t gay, girls, why do you hold hands all the time at concerts? Why do you pose together for photoshoots? Yeah, you’ve got a husband and kids, good. So...?

*I know this doesn’t sound like a reliable source, but I figure a t.A.T.u. fan is a t.A.T.u. fan. Additionally, the wealth of confusion between the comments, between people saying “they’re gay” to exasperated replies of “no, they’re straight” to later “actually, they’re sort of in between...” means that no-one really knows. Their sexuality is as consistent as Zeus’, I feel, who went from straight to gay to enjoying bestiality – with him as the animal in question - at the drop of a hat (or lightning bolt).

The question is, why did everyone think they were really gay? Why did everyone think that they were lesbian, whereas Holly Valance feeling and almost kissing a girl in her ‘Down Boy’ clip wasn’t for a moment considered gay (except by me, but I was a young and idiotic child)? Why is it that only Madonna’s daughter thought her mother could be gay, considering Madonna’s kissed Britney and Christina Aguilera and other celebrities that I don’t even remember? Why is it questionable as to whether, indeed, Mischa Barton is genuinely gay considering the number of gay roles she’s taken on (a fair few, though I believe Mia Kirshner pips the post at the moment – that’s what Emily and B told me, anyway), whereas t.A.T.u were immediately gay?

I suppose the first reason could be conviction, particularly when compared to other musicians. Holly Valance was so obviously doing it – regardless of whether it was her idea or not – to get attention, and is obviously objectifying herself in a way that she does in her other clips (with men, and by getting nude too). Madonna, for all that stuff about “passing on the legacy” (which I really don’t believe, even if it is an interesting concept in a sense), was obviously doing the same thing. As were Geri Haliwell and Kylie Minogue during that lull in both of their careers. Even the Veronicas, who seem to skirt the issue and point out that they’re (possibly psychic) sisters all the time to stop any questions about their sexuality, use it as far as I’m concerned; I genuinely believed they were going out before I knew they were sisters (based on their clip), and when asked what their favourite TV show was, they said The L Word. Not to say that means they’re lesbian or incestuous, because I doubt they are; but I suspect they want you to think that without it ever, you know, being confirmed because “that would be wrong”!

These are women objectifying themselves for control.

The problem with t.A.T.u. is that they genuinely meant it, at least from a conceptual point of view. Alright, the “locked in a cage” imagery is hardly subtle in any way, but if anything that’s what makes it seem more evident that they’re “coming out” (of the cage, perhaps, in this context. That’s a joke, mind. Just not a very funny, only observant, one). They kiss with passion, and regardless of whether they are genuinely enjoying it or not, I suspect it’s because they believe in it; they believe in the message they’re throwing forth. That is, that there’s nothing wrong with being gay.

Though I suspect their manager really just wanted the song so he could jack off to it. And he wouldn’t get offended by me saying this; probably proud, if anything, as if his reputation precedes him (hmm, there’s an image thing right there).

37. Lesbianist
As is (and this is one of the reasons why lesbians in TV and film and music fascinate me - and why I genuinely don’t really find much attraction in lesbian porn or even kissing just for the sake of it, regardless of how attractive they may be. Anyway, I need context and personality, basically, to even start to get aroused, and that’s an honest thing too) you can divide “lesbianisms” up in today’s pop culture in two ways:

1) A fashion accessory. If you’re “gay”, in some way or form, then you’re recognised and known. Particularly if you’re a woman, of course.
2) Lesbianist. I know that’s a made-up word, but basically, it’s like a feminist but for gay people. It’s a “yeah, right on!” Mardi Gras sort of thing.

There’s no go-between, not really, and that’s because... well... people just don’t expect it, and therefore the two categories grow stronger in their separation and distinction and definition, and the cycle continues downward-style.

The problem with being lesbianist is that there’s a bit of hidden criteria; you have to be gay yourself. Not literally, mind; it’s just, people will think you are. It’s the kind of thing that’d go back to the playground; if someone said “ugh, faggots” and you replied “there’s nothing wrong with being gay”, the inevitable response (and belief) is, “oh, so you’re gay?” Evidently you can’t stick up for gay people unless you’re gay yourself, and equally if you like being gay, then you have to be right-on about it and openly disregard anyone straight, as if the very idea is vile. Almost like payback.

In the same way, then, that happens in real life. Stick up for someone and, ba-da-boom-ba (oh, god, a Tennant reference), you’re them. As an example, point out that Hitler was genuinely a clever and well-prepared man, as well as being charismatic, and you’re automatically labelled a Holocaust-denying skinhead who listens to Prussian Blue and Wagner. This even happened to Will Smith recently, making me shake my head in disbelief at how touchy people are about political correctness today. Not because Will used a bad word or said anything that’s actually bad, but because he simply did an Ollivander-talking-about-Voldemort and pointed out that Hitler was great. Terrible, yes, but great. But, for instance, a “great big pile of shit” doesn’t mean “great” in the sense that it’s “good”, or better than “good” for that matter.

Basically, you have to state your entire belief about someone to not offend “a community” (such as they exist to complain, which I find hard to believe); if I was to say Hitler had a funny moustache, I couldn’t get away with that unless I pointed out that he and his horrible regime were also responsible for the extermination of millions of Jews. Which is rubbish, because I’m making fun of him in the first place.

Getting back on topic; “stick up for someone and you’re them” doesn’t always apply, or rather, it applies on varying levels depending on who you’re sticking up for. In other words, if it’s not obvious that you’re not like the person you’re sticking up for, then you’re them. So sticking up for a black person, a woman or people confined to wheelchairs is pretty obviously not cause for a “you’re one of them!” comeback if you’re a white, healthy man.

But who can get away, in most respects, for sticking up for people that aren’t them?

I think, really, the people who get off the easiest, without suspicion thrown at them, is actors.

Of course, an actor donating to a charity is likely to produce an immediate “oh, what a show-off” reaction rather than a “how good!” reaction in cynical people (like myself, or rather, the myself before I thought about it and decided it was petty), and actors going on about something they have conviction in usually ends up feeling pretty cheesy (and betrays their skills as an actor). But the thing about actors is that they’re able to slip on different faces, and different personas. So, in a twisted way, it seems alright for (made-up name, I hope) Brad Sandford to talk about the awful plight of people in wheelchairs after he spent whole days in one for the duration of a film. It’s method, they’ve become that, and therefore they have the authority and, well, right to talk about it. Suddenly, they can talk about it without it being them, because it’s one of them, one of the personas they’ve experienced and felt for.

38. Musical Personas
On the other hand, and this is the second reason (finally got there); musicians are seen as being their own personality. To follow on from the previous paragraph, if Daniel Johns is to go on about the victims of the tsunami on Boxing Day, he doesn’t, in a weird way, seem to have the right to, because he’s got no idea what they’ve gone through. He certainly hasn’t been there.

I don’t believe this myself, mind, but it’s always a nagging irritant at the back of my mind, a leftover of days when I hated celebrities, particularly well-known variants thereof.

And whilst an actor can have multiple personalities/personas (without being diagnosed for it, mind), musicians aren’t, well, supposed to do that. This undercurrent of feeling about musicians being the one thing transposes itself into many different aspects of them. For instance, their music being the most obvious; “they can’t do jazz, they were doing rock an album before!” Or, “Daniel Johns can’t be the Dissociatives, because he’s Silverchair!” People are capable of being more than one band, because a band is really a separate entity from its participants (though TISM get off lightly, being basically faceless. Clever barstards), but often that isn’t grasped as a concept. It’s not that the audience are too idiotic to realise or anything, it’s just that it’s not expected of musicians because... well... writing music is a personal thing, as is art. An actor hasn’t written their own script, and is adapting themselves to fit someone else’s ideas and creative processes (whilst putting their own, inevitable, tiny to massive spin on it). The closest you have to this in a band is that the many members will throw in their own influences on a particular song, sculpting it into something it wasn’t before. But musically, it comes from the heart, and that’s a problem. It’s a problem because it implies that immediately that’s the way the musician thinks, and, well, it’s limiting.

Yes, audiences may be able to pick up on when a musician isn’t talking from their own perspective, but generally that’s because the musician makes it very, very obvious, usually branching off into parody. Parody, that simplest of ways of telling the audience that you’re capable of talking from someone else’s perspective. Weird Al is a joker, not just because we know he is, but because his songs, even his originals, are openly parody (and often have silly voices to make it more obvious). I’m not knocking him, or anything, just pointing out the state of play. Garbage is writing a song about people that cut themselves? Solution: make it blatantly obvious that they’re channelling teenagers (mostly by repeating “have you seen my scars?” over and over). One of my great joys when writing lyrics is to not make it explicit – because I hate explicit, particularly when the musician HAS A POINT TO MAKE!! like Pink – but unfortunately I’m probably shooting myself in the foot. I mean, will anyone realise that ‘Super Cell’ isn’t me pointing out I don’t know where I stand politically, or that ‘Regina’ isn’t at all a pained love song, or that... argh, doesn’t matter.

Garbage do another parody, by the way – watch the ‘Cherry Lips’ video, where Shirley Manson practically winks at camera to say, “Yeah, we know – we’re pointing out how stupid pop musicians are! Aren’t we clever?” Well, no, not really. And yes, I know I use the song, and I know I appropriate it and refer to the same sort of things myself with ‘Lion and Lamb (Behind Closed Doors)’, but not as overt. Not as postmodern wanky. And I certainly won’t be winking at camera.

But the thing is, right from the off, musicians ARE actors. Or they are in the sense that actors are conjuring up many different facets of their personality, as are musicians; their stage presence is different to their, I don’t know, on-the-toilet presence. And for all that musicians wish that people would think they are normal people, they’re unfortunately not on stage. I mean, if I were to be “normal” Dom on stage, I’d freak out and run off screaming; I have to be Vaudewraith Dom to get into character as part of this band, and Keyboardist Dom to get into character in the band I jam with that Liam’s also in. So it’s no wonder that people on the street who meet you think of you as being like your character, because it basically is you even if it’s the stage presence and not your walking-down-the-street presence.

So, in a round-about end to this, t.A.T.u.? Shot in the foot immediately because, let’s face it, musicians are supposed to be “themselves”, in the sense of the “band themselves”, and nothing more. Otherwise it gets far too confusing.

I’m not patronising here, either; if we were really to note, in real life, the number of personas each person you knew had and consistently checked them and named them, dealing with them in that way, then... well, we’d either all be psychologists, or we’d all be psycho. Take your pick. Usually a “not a morning person” “after coffee” or “Dark Dom” “Good Dom” (which is my normal, then?) is all that can be kept in a person’s head during a day without them becoming insane with the numerous changing, metamorphosing people around them.

39. 2008 (Change)
Looks like, from what Mum has said today and what I did today anyway, I’ll be spending this year working. Probably at Olive and Lime, but we’ll see... which’d mean living in Singleton most of the time. Hum.

I should also mention that my aunt Liz, who was in hospital last year, is back in again. She has been for a while now, but this time it really looks as if she’s going to die. Which, you know, I felt bad about hearing at the time, but... until she actually dies (and no, I’m not going to use euphemisms in my own personal Journal, where other peoples’ feelings don’t get in the way of my “principles” – and yes, I’m being bitter with those quotation marks), there’s just a calmness there. That may change, but at the moment, it just seems like an inevitable thing that one can’t think too much about. Or at least I can’t, because... well, I don’t know. I’m just incapable of it, it seems.

It’s a bit of a turning point now, it seems. Liam’s going to Lismore this year, so that’s another reason I’m going up to work. Similarly, Liam’s released ‘Danse Macabre’, so that’s the first real official publication released (and yes, living in Singleton doesn’t mean I’ll stop writing, it just means I may have a bit of difficulty doing music a lot). Basically, it looks like, after the crappiness of 2007 – a crappiness which seemed to extend around the world, where it was a HUGE year for remembering the past and staying “consistent” (not in everything, mind, and perhaps it isn’t bigger and I’m just noticing it more, but god, it got to me at times) – 2008 is the change year. Bring on change, I say. As I’ve always said (recently, actually, but it’s something I’ve felt all of my life, just not known it. That’s how discovering your opinions works. At least, it does like that for me), change is necessary, change is good, and yes I have doubts and slight misgivings but overall I’m honestly fine with it.

Poor Dave, though. He’ll be finishing his Art degree this year, but really it’ll just be another year for him, except lonelier. He even said to me on the phone, before I told him about this, that he’d been feeling bored and lonely.

Even the dog’s been shorn. Change is in the air, folks.

Mum wants to read the His Dark Materials series, and said she’ll watch 28 Days Later. That’s a change.

The movie I’m looking most forward to this year is about a pop group. That’s a change (and yes, if you hadn’t guessed, it’s Finding t.A.T.u. You just can’t go past them).

I’m entering this year with a complete and utter ambivalence to most of Doctor Who, particularly the New Series itself. That’s a change (Series Two I was anticipating, Series Three I was hating the sight of. Funny that... but Series Four I’m just not fussed. I didn’t even find the “Is that Davros in the trailer?!” speculation interesting for a second, even though Liam, strangely, did).

Dave’s getting a subscription to Big Finish. That’s a change.

I’m anticipating Torchwood this year. That’s a change.

Even Scott, of all people, is kicking along – though, to be fair, that’s 2009 (though he has a few episodes this year, as an appetiser... insofar as Home and Away can be satisfying, culinary-wise or otherwise).

I mean, stepsister Olivia’s getting married this year, as is Charlotte Balind (who I haven’t really talked to, but ah well).

Okay, okay, enough of that.

40. R.I.P. Liz Dibben

41. Seriously Weir
Did you know that the first washing machine, invented in 1907, was called the Thor? And can you really picture burly great men with hammers doing their washing... or do you think it’s more likely they’d be getting their wives to? Thought so. Even Hagar the Horrible’s still quite misogynist, and in this day and age, too.

I’m going ice skating tomorrow with Tim, Amanda, Hannah and Jack. First time ever for me. Though, did you know, the world’s first fully-enclosed ice rink was actually built in Adelaide? I mean, come on. Adelaide?! So that’s their claim to fame, I suppose. I can now tell Kate her state is worth something.

Pity it wasn’t a frozen weir, though.

(Injoke. Don’t worry yourselves about it)

42. Served Black
Funny how the term “black comedy” refers to something intrinsically well-thought out and contrastingly brilliant, whereas “black music” tends to refer to something obvious, bland, and I-is-what-I-is. Well actually, that’s not funny at all, since you’ll often get people thinking that, say, the potty mouthed nan from The Catherine Tate Show is dark comedy, or Scary Movie is (gross out, perhaps. Dark/black comedy, not really), and that, say, Jay-Z is a lyrical genius.

That said, the video clip for ‘99 Problems’ is meant to be really good. And who knows, if I listen to it again, I may decide he’s a brilliant lyricist. Even though I find that hard to believe from someone who not only adds a “Z” to their name as if they’re emulating an Akira Toriyama fascination but also saying “c’mooooornnnnn” in a drugged, that’s-how-real-sex-would-sound voice. Who knows, that might in itself be brilliant in context, but I doubt it. I really, really doubt it.
Ah, fuck it. I’m going to go to bed.

17. The 13 Silliest Game Endings I’ve Come Across

1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
If you don’t get enough House Points, you lose the House Cup. So, if you’re familiar with the book/film, picture this happening: Harry beats Lord Voldemort, he and his friends get House Points... and yet, they still lose. It’s so unfair.

2. Myst
I’m pretty sure it’s Myst; the original, I mean. I’ve not actually seen this one, but Liam informs me, constantly, of how funny it is. Basically, if you don’t retrieve a certain Linking Page, you will appear with Atrus who, when he asks for it and then realises you don’t have it, goes into a fit of rage and then declares that the two of you will be spending the rest of your lives there. And, apparently, the game freezes deliberately.

3. Super Mario Advance
You’ve defeated the nasty enemy and his minions. But wait... it’s all a dream! What was the point of this one? I can readily accept it taking place in the Mushroom Kingdom universe, because after all, it’s a bizarre universe anyway. Maybe because they can pull up vegetables, that was against the rules. Or maybe the very idea of Toad or a lady such as Princess Peach actually doing something just don’t work in the Mushroom Kingdom. Whatever. It’s an amusingly pointless ending, and since it’s only Mario sleeping, it’s particularly unfair if you spent the whole game using, say, Peach (as I did).

4. Spiderman 2
The PS2 one, based on the film. I mean the post-ending, which is Chapter 14 or something. The narrator guy dares you to get a number of points, and if you do, he says something like, “Wow. You actually did it. Ah well. That’s the end of the game. Bye” in a semi-ironic tone of voice. Pretty pointless, as you can still swing around and do just about everything anyway.

5. TimeSplitters 2
Corporal Hart’s dead! Oh, that’s such a shame. Wait a minute, I didn’t even know who she was. It’s almost like Free Radical were trying to do an Aerith, and failed because they forgot to actually include the character. Having them metamorphose when they travelled through time didn’t help the characterisation, either.

6. TimeSplitters 3
I don’t mind the story of this game all up - silly though it may be, it’s also aware of that and takes the piss at times. But the ending is ridiculous - everything’s peachy and happy, and Anya drools all over Cortez whilst her pants grow increasingly wet. There’s not even a coda that says the threat isn’t finished yet, it just looks like paradise. Which is odd, considering there’s supposed to be a TimeSplitters 4 coming out.

7. Pokemon Gold/Silver
I’m not talking about the Elite Four, I’m talking about the weird postmodern bit of nudge-nudge when you fight some guy called Red, who for some reason actually should be Yellow (he has a Pikachu, and he’s blatantly meant to be Ash from the cartoon series). Once you fight him - a man who, incidentally, doesn’t say anything - you win. It’s amusing, but horribly inept as a game ending if you think about it.

8. Spyro the Dragon
Again, I’m talking about the post-ending here. In this case, after defeating the bad guy and getting all of the gems, you get to enter a whole new level where... you can collect gems! And that’s it, folks! What a reward! I spent my childhood trying to unlock this level, came back to it when I was older, finished it in less than a day, and wondered what the hell the point was.

9. Wario Land II
Not technically a game ending, but a level ending; on the first level, if you don’t press any buttons, Wario just keeps sleeping and the level ends. Hilarious, and oh so silly.

10. Windows Vista Solitaire
Everyone knows the old one, of course; those wonderful falling torrents of cards. For some reason, for Vista, they revamped it, and although they fall, they also break into little pieces as if they’re emulating the title sequence of Casino Royale. I don’t know where this destructive urge came from, and I doubt very much that Solitaire players in real life (you know, with real cards) would tear their cards up and set them alight after winning a game. It sort of links Solitaire players in with rock ‘n’ roll musicians who smash their instruments at the end of a set, and is very, very silly.

11. Metal Gear Solid 3
In an “OMG TIME PARADOX!” like moment, if you shoot Ocelot in the head, the game ends because you’ve caused a time paradox. Amusing. Silly. All that.

12. Crash Bandicoot
Guess what, Crash? Now that you’ve collected all of the gems, you don’t have to fight Cortex to get to your lover. Instead, you can just hop on those gems which’ll take you down a corridor to meet a bird, and you’ll fly away instead. Leaving Cortex to spend the rest of his life scheming and plotting and destroying the Earth, and making every following game jettisoned from continuity.

13. The Sims 2
THERE IS NO END. ARRRRGGGH. THEY LIVE FOREVER. THEY ARE DEMONS. ARRRGGHH.

18. Sci-fi Western
I’ve just seen all of Firefly. Now, Firefly has been described as a sci-fi/western, and I feel that’s a pretty accurate assessment. It’s worth(less) pointing back to that quick thing I said ages ago about “Western” as a genre, that it’s probably the most useless and least developed of all genres. You know, it has definite rules, and anything that moves ever so slightly out of them suddenly becomes a parody or something different.

At first, when watching Firefly, I thought I was wrong. But then I remembered that it was a “sci-fi/western”. In other words, it’s two genres compiled as one, and everything that’s original or new or different or even really all that interesting is due entirely to the “sci-fi” side of things. That surprises me, because sci-fi fans – and by that I mean rabid, nerdy freaks. The ones that somehow manage to fit the stereotype, even though I thought that impossible – are generally, as Lawrence Miles will point out, detestable beings. Well, I’m not that harsh and I don’t believe they’re detestable, but they’re completely wrong.

I’ve never met a western fan, see, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they would like their stuff clear-cut. As in, consistent, and boring. And though I’m aware that extreme bad is worse, more or less, than something like boredom, it’s... not always. Boredom, and consistency, are probably the worst thing that could ever happen to the human race, despite what we’d like to think. But getting off the philosophy, it’s also the worst thing that can happen to television.

Example: critics’ll happily tell you about how much they hate Australian Idol. Right? Well, there’s a point; they’ll happily do it. And that’s because, although they hate the show, they love it existing so they can trash it. I’m happy to admit that, in a way - and, hand on heart - I’m glad of the existence of Catherine Tate and Australian Idol and the Spice Girls... because they’re so bad, they’re... not good, but... Well, actually, no. They ARE good. Good at reminding us what “good” is, and what “bad” is, and therefore we can laugh at them. Not in a mocking way, mind, just an indulgent way. Though I must say my reaction to those three examples verges from slapping my head to slapping my head to grinning (my head), in that order, but that’s a subjective thing.

But shows that aren’t overtly bad, but are boring, that play by the rules. They never get trashed. I feel they should do. It always surprises people when I’ll slightly defend something obviously abhorrent and then trash something bland and inoffensive, but that’s the whole point. At least with the abhorrent, we can learn from it. Certainly, I can learn from it, but I hope the audience (who also know it’s bad) and the makers (who, hopefully, will awake to this) will learn from it too. But something bland and boring and just there, sitting and wasting space, just fills me with a sense of hopelessness, as if we’ll never be rid of shit. And I don’t mean disgusting shit, I mean shit like... I don’t know, like how people say “shit” and it doesn’t mean anything anymore, not really. Almost a grey, tasteless, plastic piece of shit. Like eating a fake plastic poo instead of a genuine one.

Though that’s perhaps not the best metaphor, because I suspect I’d eat the plastic rather than the poo. But, you know, different contexts and media and all that.

Western? Well, again, here’s an example of me getting to the point in three paragraphs and then making the point in one or two sentences, but here it is; to my mind, they tend to play by the rules, and are therefore consistent, and are therefore bland. It’s all very business-like and uncomplicated, and it really creeps me out, if anything. Not a creepiness of fear, more a creepiness of... boredom. Not sure how that makes sense, but I do get creeped out by intense boredom, because it makes me wonder where the heck the boredom comes from. But hey, I’ve had more fun sitting in my room thinking about irrelevant stuff ad libitum than watching westerns.

So I suspect that until we get the day when there can be a western that plays by the rules but someone sculpts something with a fresh angle or something, we won’t see how that genre can breathe (without attaching itself to other genres).

So going by past successes with this type of thing, perhaps I’ll get Danny Boyle to do a western.

19. Spaghetti Variant Thereof
And you know, I’ve always thought “spaghetti westerns” should, ideally, involve Italians, as a rule. Or, if we’re getting technical about origins, Chinese people. It’d add something interesting, I tells ya.

20. Having Seen It…
Best ad ever before watching a film: The Golden Compass cash-in with Hungry Jacks. The Australian voiceover guy said, “You should follow the golden compass to your nearest Hungry Jacks!” Liam actually laughed out loud at this and people started looking at him, making me wonder if anyone knew, in advance, what the compass actually did. After all, it IS a misnomer. Obviously Hungry Jacks’ marketing guys didn’t know what it did. If anything, you’d ask the alethiometer for truths in life. In fact, you could ask it that pressing question: “Are the burgers really better at Hungry Jack’s?”

I’m not ready to talk about The Golden Compass yet, though, so don’t press me on that. In fact, I’m still trying to formulate an opinion. Which isn’t a good sign, mind. If something takes me more than a day to decide that whether I loved or hated it – and in this case, neither – then there’s something at the core of it that’s just dull and impossible to get past, potential or no potential.

21. Happy New Year!
I’m wondering if I should bother to make any New Year’s resolutions. Keeping in mind that, contrary to what you might think, I’m not one of those cynics who... well, actually, I am indeed a cynic about New Year’s resolutions, but only in regards to myself. For other people, i.e. people who aren’t as lazy and consistently idiotic as me, I have complete faith that their complete faith in those resolutions will see them achieve it.

The irony; I have faith for them, but not for me.

I’ll start thinking about it tomorrow, and make sure I make an entry tomorrow at some stage about it, in between watching a live internet broadcast (if I’m able to, technologically) of Radiohead playing all of In Rainbows.

Disturbing, that, just a tad; I just switched off Doctor Who (Series 3; Tennant’s video diaries. He’s so ridiculously watchable), went to the toilet, came back, and turned on an album to listen to whilst I wrote this. Yep, In Rainbows. Not intentional, I swear.

22. *Blink* “I’m Sorry?”
Speaking of music, though, I for no reason at all suddenly started thinking at length about a Blink 182 song. I know, that sounds horribly strange, and it must look (look/sound? I’m getting confused now) even stranger that I’ve not yet hurled horrible abuse or even written *shudder* after writing the name of the band. And, indeed, I’ve refrained from calling them The-Band-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, a useful phrase which later Liam and I appropriated for that band who I (ironically) forget the name of who sang about a “whore” wedding someone and kicking a “goddamn door down”, the guys who were all pretty-boy and emo, yet denied that they were – citing Beck and other artists as influences, despite their not being any evidence of this. Normally I’d applaud this – after all, one of the biggest lessons I’ve learnt from Radiohead in particular is not musical content as such, but album cohesion; not something you could pick up on first glance. But when this band just went off and became worse by not listening to their idols, well, brave, maybe, but also boringly samey and dull, whilst pretending they weren’t. Which was a tad pretentious now that I think about it, but another “p” word, namely “pretty”, usually tends to make me think of them far more often.

And I’ve just remembered their name, which has another “p” – Panic at the Disco. To this day, I’m unsure as to whether there’s some weird Sophie Ellis Bextor link, but if so, I’m glad they didn’t sing “heeeeeeeey” in an emo fashion, which would have been possibly even more annoying than the original.

Besides, we’d get the They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named bits confused and not know which band we were talking about. It’d be even more confusing now, considering there’s that band that plays at the Loft, the Harry Potter fan band called, well, that very name. Who I often feel, despite laughing a tad at them, a measure of bond with, considering the old Stubby Boardman days.

But yes, Blink 182. See, I walked past Nina this evening, who’d said something about how she’d accidentally hurt the dog. Seeing as she was singing a Blink 182 song, I figured that was how she’d done so.

See? Disparaging comment no.1.

I really must stop doing that, though.

See, I’m going to give an objective view of that song, insofar as I’m capable of one, because all reviewers are naturally prejudiced. Hopefully, there are such things as universal truths even if people don’t always agree with them; for instance, everyone agrees that murder is wrong, or at least, it’s assumed everyone does, except those who don’t. But somehow, we just know it is. Morals are pretty subjective anyway; for instance, when Nina didn’t want to eat kangaroo but did want to eat lamb at the barbeque we had last night, I said to her, “One extreme or the other, that’s how vegetarianism works”, before realising that this really doesn’t make sense. After all, vegans don’t eat fish but vegetarians do, allegedly; but Nina’s refusal to eat kangaroos because she’s patted them, but is happy to eat lamb because she hasn’t, isn’t defined as a subcategory of vegetarianism as far as I know. I suppose I should start calling her a “vegesentimentalist” or something similar. And since, as far as I know, she refuses to eat humans, I’m a tad worried about when she’s patted them, as that would be high-handed and patronising; though, that said, it’s exactly the sort of behaviour I expect from her group of friends.

Ooh, now I’m bashing Nina’s friends. I really must stop doing that, too.

(Would someone who eats meat but not termites be a vegemite, then? If so, I’m one of them. Hmm. Or at least, I am in terms of ants; having one die in a peanut butter jar put me off the entire thing, even though it took but a scoop to get rid of it. Perversely, though, I doubt I would have minded had it been, say, a doughnut)

23. Music over Morals
Music, though, is even harder to pin down than morals. For instance, I’m of the opinion that the perfect, or most desirable and laudable, bit of music will be that which tries its hardest to be something by experimenting with form and/or lyrical content and/or instrumentation and/or concept – just does something that makes it stand out – but at the same time isn’t showy about it and is still definitely listenable (which in itself, “listenable” I mean, is increasingly hard to define. “Listenable” doesn’t even mean, technically, “likeable” after all; I can watch a TV show like Torchwood that has horrible characters in it, and yet love watching them).

Not everyone’s going to agree, because that’s the nature of subjectivity; it, to an extent, dictates objectivity. There’s a consensus of sorts, and though I’m buggered as to where it came from, I’m glad it’s there, even if I – and by extension, everyone – doesn’t agree with certain details. For instance, the “pretentious” bit always gets me; I’m always worried that people can call Radiohead “pretentious” and then ignore, for instance, someone in a song who says “yeah, sing it!”. One’s just music, and one’s just showy shit, respectively (not that I had much respect there, but you know what I mean by “respectively”). And to narrow what I mean even further down, so that I may finally make sense (I’m notoriously bad at that, sorry), my “they’re not pretentious” argument centres around Radiohead, not necessarily the members. I don’t think Thom Yorke is pretentious, mind, but I do remember him once saying that Radiohead’s music was like a “musical orgasm”, and even though (particularly with ‘The National Anthem’) I agree with him, it was still arrogant of him to say so. But even if he thinks that, it doesn’t surface in the music; there’s no smugness, no “look how clever we are!”, nothing like that. They just get on with the job; no bullshit, and all opinions are about the world at large rather than about something self-obsessed and petty, like, “I love that girl ‘round the corner, and isn’t that more important than millions of other things I could be singing about?”.

Similarly, Aphex Twin (Richard D. James) hates, as Liam tells me, or rather doesn’t think much of, most musicians. For instance, he thinks Radiohead is utterly boring. But never, in his music, does he say anything like that, as opposed to, say, Pink openly attacking Bush (I know I cite this often, and I know she’s attacking a politician and not a musician – which is probably worse, come to think of it – but it’s a clear and fairly well-known example, so I use it whenever I can). And just because he doesn’t like Radiohead doesn’t mean I don’t; and just because he doesn’t like Radiohead doesn’t mean I dislike his music, either.


24. Blink 182, right...
Thing is, Blink 182 are listenable. Listenable in the sense of “easy to listen to”, not “I can personally listen to them” because, by and large, I can’t, and that’s a subjective thing, I openly admit that. But objectively, they’re listenable, but not... well, they’re not really anything, are they? I remember Liam telling me that every Blink 182 song in existence has the same bass riff, and although he’s no doubt exaggerating, it’s still a pertinent point about how samey the music is, in the same way that I’m sure Nickelback’s various songs have different chords and basslines and drum rolls and lyrics and vocal lines if I bothered to sit down and study them, but I’m buggered if I can really tell the difference when just sitting down and listening.

But the song Nina was singing was that one... I’m going to call it ‘Wish You Were’, because I’m pretty sure that’s what it’s called, and if not, it’s hopefully quite self-evident as to what it is.

Thing is, this song is good. No, no, honestly, it is.

To get it out of the way, though, there are two things I hate about this song;

1) The singing. Or at least, the second lot of singing. I quite like the deeper vocal stuff in the first bit, but when the higher “Where arrrrre youuuuu, and Iiii’m so sorrrrry” comes in, I just cringe. I honestly don’t think it works with what the other instruments are doing at the time, but perhaps this is purely a subjective thing. I mean, I’m perfect willing to admit that whiny emo voices rub me up the wrong way in general, but considering that I thought the first bit sounded good, I can’t be alone in thinking, you know, that the voice ruins it (or does its best to).

Besides, it’s not the first time I’ve heard a guitar/strings/whiny voice combination; there’s the Smashing Pumpkins’ ‘Disarm’ which is, if you think about it, a fairly similar song in a lot of ways. But here lies the rub; for some reason that I can’t put my finger on, Billy Corgan’s voice doesn’t annoy me at all. It does in the live version, mind, where he screams, but that said, the live version’s heavy and not the sad strum that the album version is, being more an outraged cry (hey, isn’t that what ‘Silverfuck’ is for?). But somehow, Corgan’s voice, whiny or no, conjures up the emotion of the song in a way that... whoever the lead singer of Blink 182, his voice, just doesn’t. Corgan’s voice works in conjunction, Blink-guy just doesn’t.

Funny I’m talking about this actually, because the Doctor Who episode I watched before Tennant’s video diaries was ‘Blink’. Only episode I watched, as well.

But it is a sad song. It is an emotional song. I’ve not heard it in context, mind; as in, I’ve not heard its placing in whatever album it was on. But unlike most attempts at emotional songs, I have a feeling it isn’t surrounded by ten other songs trying for the same emotional level; indeed, I’m fairly certain, being Blink 182, that ‘Wish You Were’ is surrounded by angsty-attack songs. Even by itself though, it manages to be emotional in a way that, say, Rihanna’s ‘Umbrella’ completely fails to be.

Which is interesting, considering that I’ve no idea what the lyrics really are, and nor have I really paid attention to that factor at all. God knows what the song’s about; probably a girl who left and he wishes was there with him. Am I right? But there’s nothing wrong, intrinsically, with that concept; there’s nothing wrong with any concept, really, it’s just how it’s realised. Although, it’s worth pointing out, some concepts have a bigger drag factor than others; like how Torchwood did a fairly passable investigation of a sex monster in its second episode, but ultimately failed because, well, it’s a sex monster.

Why have I mentioned Torchwood twice when talking about Blink 182?

Anyway. In regards to ‘Wish You Were’, it’s the strings, and the slide-y thing on the guitar which I can’t name because I still no shit all about guitar despite recording a song on one just today. The strings in the song are what make it; they make it sad in a way that the singer’s voice just doesn’t, and I’m glad that they somehow manage to... well, I’m able to listen to them and ignore him, which is a good thing.

I really shouldn’t be saying this, mind. In the past (as in, a month or so ago), I said something along the lines of me being worried about writing for strings, but then not being so when I realised any old git can have strings in their song and get away with it (I think I said that in my So Fresh review). I’m trying to work out why I’ve now changed my opinion slightly – or at least, I haven’t refined it properly, but the use of strings in songs is worth a lot of consideration and even an essay, really, particularly as I’ve been using them a hell of a lot myself recently - but I think the answer lies in how they’re used. They were just backing instruments in whatever-the-hell-that-song-was, but in ‘Wish You Were’, they’re... they’re it. They’re the song. It’d be like taking away the strings from the Verve’s hit song, whatever that was called. You know – “Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo! Doo doo doo! Doo doo doo!” It went like that.

So somehow – don’t ask me how – Blink 182 were able to implement the strings incredibly well. I have a feeling that, for once, the music just appeared, fully formed, into whoever-wrote-it’s head. Perhaps the guy who wrote it didn’t usually write the songs. I do remember reading that the lead singer of the band reportedly hated most of the songs they did, so maybe it was him. Though if that’s true, considering his singing, I don’t think he has a right to get too righteous and above-it-all about it.

Man, I’m complimenting Blink 182. What’s going on here?

Well, time for number 2 to balance it out...

2) It’s good. I know, this is supposed to be things I hate about the track, but I genuinely do hate this about the track. It’s because, since it’s good, this one track, suddenly it’s apparently all worthwhile. Suddenly, indeed, Blink 182 are a great band.

Now, I’m not going to say that one standout thing against lots of vaguely okay stuff doesn’t mean the band’s throwaway regardless of that one standout thing. For instance, I said of Hex that there were two scenes in the last episode that made me think it was worthwhile, that made me think it had great potential and was, you know, well worth watching just to get to that (which is why I still haven’t just gone and shown Liam that SPOILER SPOILER DON’T READ LIAM bit where John Murphy’s bit of music starts playing SPOILER SPOILER OKAY YOU CAN START AGAIN, ASSUMING YOU WEREN’T IMMEDIATELY PUT OFF THAT I’M BEING NICE ABOUT BLINK 182).

But I’m never, ever, going to say that Hex, at least in its first series (not seen the second), was a great show, because, let’s face it, it isn’t. It’s competent, sure, and it’s... well, it’s not exactly boring or anything. But apart from me liking it better than what I’ve seen of Buffy due to subjective reasons, it’s nothing to shout from the rooftops about.

So when I see people who always liked Blink 182 play this song, look at me, and say, “See? They’re a great band”... that’s when I’m annoyed, and that’s when I hate this song. Because suddenly, it’s justification. And trust me, it’s undeserved.

Not that you really should trust me in general, because I’m a horrible liar (or a great one, actually; depends on how you look at it), but I’m, dare I say it, right here.

Look, had they continued in this fashion, had this been a turning point, I would have liked it better. For instance, I like ‘Disarm’ and various songs from Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness and Siamese Dream, but had the Pumpkins not progressed to Adore and MACHINA, I never would have held them in the quite high regard that I do (particularly with their back catalogue, Gish being the main, yawn-worthy album that’s horribly overrated). As far as I know, and I’d be surprised if I didn’t, ‘Wish You Were’ did not signal a new, better direction for Blink 182, any more than whatever the hell that album it was on did. And, case in point, that means they’re not a great band.

25. MusicSpace
You know, though, if I can criticise Myspace for something, it’s that; that ability people have to automatically and very easily post their, dare I say it, uninformed or unfounded opinions on the net. Notice I’ve used the words “uninformed” and “unfounded”, though, and that’s important; I’m not saying they’re idiots, or wrong. The problem is, as it stands, that these days you have to have an opinion. If you don’t, the millions of people on the net – and there’s always a desire to impress them on some level, even if you disagree entirely with what they’re saying (you just have to know what they’re talking about) – will look at you with disdain and incredulity, and there’s nothing worse than being not well regarded by someone you’ve never even met, let alone know enough about to point out the personal flaws in and construct a proper argument, or even a juvenile slinging match.

I mean, for instance, despite all of the ranting and opinion I throw in this blog, there are many things I don’t have opinions on. Along with posters on the Faction Paradox forum (I read these comments today, too, so good timing, this), I have no real opinion whatsoever on Kylie Minogue. Which is odd, considering I keep using her in Vaudewraith albums to symbolise the “queen” (oops, should I have spoiled that?). But it’s a usage of a queen that I have an ambiguity too, in the same way that I have no opinion – though this may surprise you – of the royal family themselves and their various shenanigans and love lives. It doesn’t even annoy me on a “god, who gives a shit about their romance?” level. Despite my disdain for the fact that Australia’s still really a bunch of British leftovers tempered with international flavours (though very strongly an American tasting one), and despite the fact that for that reason I would like Australia to become a republic, I have no opinion on the royal family. I don’t want a republic because I hate the queen; I want a republic because I want to start living in Australia as a proper Australia.

On Myspace, though, there’s... well, you have to put these things in. One of the problems with Myspace, I’m starting to realise as I type this, is the business-like manner to starting up a Myspace page. And, in fact, the fact that it never says “This is compulsory” and leaves the others out. When starting your own Myspace, you’re basically required to put in what you like and dislike, as well as your favourite friends (something I always find perverse in the extreme). Favourite Bands is where it falls down; obviously, the compulsion (and I’d have this too, back in the day; in fact, about six months ago I would have filled it in out of a completionist’s sake) is to fill it in, and on the spot, I’d find it difficult to believe anyone normal could really put down their most-liked, most-worthy musicians – and I’m including myself in “normal” because I mean that to mean “not someone who sits around and sniffily convinces themselves that this and this band are better than everything else because they simply are and transcend this and that”, and when I’ve been asked on the spot what musicians I like, I often just get up to “Radiohead” and stop, unable to really think of more.

Though this is also because I’m wary of getting into arguments about bands being “pretentious” or “what, so you’re an elitist twat?”, and curiously Radiohead doesn’t appear to be called pretentious that often by people I meet in real life...

Point. The point is, say, Nina might fill in Timbaland and the Rogue Traders, because that’s what she’s listening to at the time. But say someone comes along and sees this. “Rogue Traders? Man, that’s not cool! They’re crap! Why not have something awesome, like Cannibal Corpse?” Suddenly, they’re required to defend their favourite bands (at the time), and usually the argument will be, “No way! The Rogue Traders are one of the best bands eva!” (intentional misspelling only on the last word, because I can’t be bothered working out the rest of it in the varied forms of txt-speak. And yes, there ARE many forms, which makes it all the more confusing).

It’s gone from “favourite” to “best” in a matter of seconds.

Inferiority complex to superiority complex, basically. I’m stealing from Nick Briggs’ comments on the Daleks, but he said it best; people with inferiority complexes generally develop superiority complexes to overcome it. Just look at Lawrence Miles.

Or perhaps, on occasion (hopefully not that often), me.

But music therefore becomes part of someone’s identity, and it becomes common practice to scoff at other peoples’ music tastes to defend your own. This isn’t a new thing, and Myspace certainly didn’t start this, but suddenly, since millions of people are now able to view your page, it’s now a bigger and more obvious behemoth, and a bigger and more obvious problem.

And all of the friends will band together (hee-hee, unintentional pun) and they’ll all be huge Rogue Traders fans, and that’s because they’re defending themselves against musical bullies who are defending themselves against those who don’t “understand them”. There’s safety in numbers, after all. And having friends is a big part of that.

At least, when you’re younger.

After all – and I’m quoting from Dumbledore here, would you believe – the greatest sign of maturity isn’t standing up to your enemies, it’s standing up to your friends. Portentous and fortune-cookie-card-worthy sounding may that be, it’s still true. It’s the reason why Australia looks like a lapdog entering Iraq, because it had the courage to stand up to its enemies, but not its friends.

Mind, standing up to your friends doesn’t mean vehemently rejecting something they say or do, it just means disagreeing with them and, better yet, doing so objectively, then subjectively, and with many points in between. Or, if you can’t be bothered, subjectively, and nothing else, accepting the other. That’s maturity.

Not that this always works, either; you’ll find that people - and occasionally, you yourself will be tempted to do this, as I have – will automatically leap on something and proclaim that they adore it because (not that they’d admit this) other people hate it, even f they’re all in the same crowd. So, say, fifty people are in the Doctor Who crowd, and though forty-eight of them hate the episode ‘Love & Monsters’, two will say they love it because they want to be different (mind, I love that story, and it’s because it’s great – I’ve written a review, so I’m not lying, and I won’t elaborate here – it’s not because I want to be different, even if I admit that occasionally I have that urge in other reviews). Or, people saying what is definitely a band’s worse song, voted so by just about every fan, is their favourite and dismissing the other well-liked songs, just to get people’s heckles up.

(And hopefully, when I dismiss – or rather, give a “fail” mark to – well-liked songs and albums, I do so with reason, not because I’m doing it to feel superior. But I don’t know; if it looks like I am doing this in real life, pull me up on it and I’ll have a think before responding to it again)

26. 80s Nastalgia
For some reason, this has got me thinking of the 80’s. Don’t know why in particular, really, but it has. After all, you won’t a find a decade more derided on face value than the 80’s. Look at that hair! Look at those costumes! How gaudy is that? That decade must have been rubbish!

Now, I don’t know how many people genuinely dismiss the entire decade on those outer appearances, but if it’s a majority, then I’m a tad worried. It’s like saying Hitler was an excellent man because he was powerful looking and striking in appearance.

But the 80’s seem to me to be, you know, a pretty fine area, musically. At least, in some sectors. I’m perfectly happy to say that the Cure are an excellent band (or at least, a pretty good one; let’s not get our praising misjudged, like Blink 182 fans do), but also happy to say I greatly dislike AC/DC. And the 90’s seem like a better musical decade to me, but that said, I’ve probably just been exposed to more bands from the 90’s than the 80’s. And technology plays a big part in it; one of the reasons why classical music still resonates today is because it was never recorded, and thus many different people playing it becomes a habitual thing, and if you were to hear, say, ‘Moonlight Sonata’ in Goosebumps it would be creepy and part of the soundtrack because it sounds like it was recorded yesterday (and it was; well, at the time. I only used Goosebumps because it was the first example that came to mind). But using an Abba song in a movie now will automatically throw back to the 70’s, for example, and that’s even if you’ve never heard Abba before or heard of them. People can just tell based on recording quality if something’s old or not, in the same way that 70’s British television (watch Doctor Who: ‘City of Death’ and Fawlty Towers back to back) has this particular feel to it that’s hard to define, but is quite recognisable.

I suspect if you were to have a new band record an Abba song now, it would lose all links to the 70’s and be a modern, technologically recorded song. The problem is that people are going to hate it because people alive in the 70’s are obviously still kicking today, and that means they remember the original context. And unless it’s re-recorded for a specific purpose – say, a film – then it’s pointless, particularly if just a cover for an album (Guns ‘n’ Roses’ version of ‘Live and Let Die’ bloody well proves that, as well as being horribly dull). Doesn’t happen with classical music though, and that’s because it’s ruddy well centuries old. Doesn’t happen with jazz, either, and yet there WERE recordings then.

That said, the very idea of Guy Sebastian singing lots of old bluesy and soul hits on his new album rubs me up entirely the wrong way. Bugger off, Guy. No-one likes you, except that old woman at JB Hi-Fi who cautiously grabbed your CD whilst in front of us, lining up.

The 80’s thing is something that just applies in general, though; not just to music. Keep in mind Doctor Who, where someone could laugh at the 80’s-ness of the production (though people don’t, curiously, laugh at the 70’s-ness of the production in Star Wars; is it really that much worse? I mean, particularly if you watch the trailer for Starcrash with Caroline Munro on Youtube?). People occasionally just refuse to look past external appearances, which occasionally makes me bang my head on the wall in embarrassment and pain (particularly because banging your head on a wall is, you know, painful). So in Doctor Who, Sylvester McCoy’s got a funny Scottish voice and question marks on his jumper, so immediately the show must be shockingly bad. Oh, and Colin Baker’s wearing a multi-coloured coat, so again, it must be horrible (I love the coat though! And Sylv’s Scottish accent, come to that).

(Or, it’s like saying, “Spooks must be a terrible show because the three main characters dress like they’re in The Matrix”. And though it’s embarrassing out of context perhaps, in a “I wouldn’t have a desktop picture of them lest I be thought of as a Matrix-style fan” way, it certainly doesn’t harm the show at all)

27. Oldy Worldy
Why aren’t the previous Doctors’ outfits criticised as much? Easy; oldyworldy. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Doctors all have something very quintessentially British yet incredibly old-fashioned about them (as does the 8th Doctor); it’s all Victorian half the time, all coats and occasionally cricket outfits. Very 1920’s, that cricket outfit. Being as no-one really talks about 20’s fashion in anywhere near the same frequency as 80’s fashion, it’s obvious that society’s really just moved on and started viewing it as classic. But if we’re to be honest, I mean... look, if we can take potshots at stupid fashion statements in the past, can we talk about really, really tall top hats? Or those hip things (that I’ve forgotten the name of) which kept womens’ waists ridiculously thin (corsets! That’s what they’re called. Just remembered). Or look at the Romans’ army outfits; look at their pants! Or the Egyptians, who wore incredibly stupid hats and loved to be represented as wearing eyeliner (hang on, isn’t this just the 80’s very, very early on?).

And as strange as it may sound - even to me, because I can’t picture it myself – I’m confident that in, say, fifty or a hundred years’ time, the fashion of the 80’s will look incredibly normal and just a progression. Indeed, centuries down the track, people could look at the mulleted 80’s Saved by the Bell hunk in the same way that people think Michelangelo’s David is the extrapolation of a purely masculine way of sculpting, well, man. A very Olympics wet-dream visualisation of man.

28. The Man with No Pants
Michelangelo’s David. That’s a tad arrogant, ain’t it? We don’t say Picasso’s Guernica. Though apparently, according to some DVD covers, we do say things like Hitchcock’s Psycho, as if we somehow didn’t know what Psycho was. And as if we didn’t know Hitchcock was involved, considering how highly he’s lauded, and how many cameos he tends to make.

Maybe Picasso cameos in Guernica as the cow? Or Michelangelo was supposed to cameo as the second half of David’s penis, which would have made it longer?

Ultimate extrapolation of wet-dream visualisation of man, my arse. He’s got a tiny dick. Obviously the Greeks liked that sort of thing – I mean, they even liked the idea of Zeus screwing a man whilst he was a dove – but you know, I find the penis thing even stranger.

But if people were to write David, with the italics – if it became mandatory to do things in the way I do – it’d never be confusing ever again. You’d never read something that said, “He’s as hunky as David” and wonder if it meant David-and-Margaret David.

I’ll stop saying David now.

29. Locale
Actually, a quick point regarding what I was saying about instrumentation when I was talking about strings; it’s worth, I think, pointing to Thom Yorke’s song on The Eraser, ‘Skip Divided’. The following is become an increasing obsession of mine, I should point out: locale in music. I’ve pretty well exhausted the “context” argument for a while, but “locale”, whilst linked in some ways, is worth a bloody long discussion in itself. I’m not going to, because it’s actually 12:32 and I’m getting tired (and no, I haven’t been writing for exactly two hours; I went to the toilet once or twice, and cleaned my teeth. So yeah, still over an hour and a half), but... well, I’ll try and start it off. One of the great things about OK Computer (I should stop always citing Radiohead, but dammit, they’re so damn useful as inspiration in so many ways) is that, through the theme of alienation, Thom is able to lyrically paint a place for the music to be set in, or the concept if you will. I mean, I can’t say what this place is, exactly, but it has its links: it’s got the 50’s America I-was-probed-last-night! alien obsession in ‘Subterranean Homesick Alien’; it’s got an oppressive political leader as ‘Electioneering’ points out; you’re not safe in your own home as ‘Climbing up the Walls’ points out; people want to live normal, unsurprising lives as ‘No Surprises’ points out; and ‘Fitter Happier’ is full of imagery as to what drives this world that Thom’s describing. Importantly, they’re all linked together in some way, and Thom does this simply through (perhaps unconsciously, but it works) constantly referring to roads (can’t be that unintentional, considering the album cover). Roads being the metaphor for physical and mental journey, of course – I mean, there’s even a road movie that could technically qualify, since it has its own standards and set-ups, as a genre in itself. So ‘Airbag’, ‘Let Down’ and ‘The Tourist’ all link in this idea by showing, in a sense, movement around this place that Thom’s conjuring up.

Sure, he’s probably just talking about how he sees Britain. Doesn’t matter. This isn’t said in OK Computer itself, and therefore it operates on its own terms as being a completely constructed, all new world that may only have, at best, similarities to our reality; in the same way that the Daleks can be seen, particularly in ‘The Dalek Invasion of Earth’ as they wave their sucker cups in the air around London, as Nazis, but you can take all the real-life parallels away thank-you-very-much and it still works wonderfully on its own terms.

In terms of conceptual basis for an album, I feel movement between locales is always an important thing (turns out I sort of do have the energy to wax on lyrical [pun!] about locale in music!) – and when I say “important thing”, I mean, “if you’re going to write something utterly brilliant”. The number of times you’ve heard a country song talk about the “road” – “I’m on the road again” as Donkey says in Shrek – may be cheesy, as might be the lovely Proclaimers song ‘I’m On My Way’ which is also in Shrek. But these types of songs are chosen for movement scenes in film because they’re, well, moving. They’re about moving, they’re about connecting with other people, they’re about... life. Movement is life, really. Says the man sitting at his computer writing a blog for over two hours, true, but I still stand by it even if I don’t follow it. I’m occupying the No Standing space, if we’re to continue this metaphor.

So locale is important to painting a picture, album-wise, of what you’re trying to convey. Van Gogh may be emotional when painting Starry Night, but he also obviously pays attention to both structure and locale; emotional painting style or no emotional painting style, that towering black, erm, tower, over that subdued little town below, is scary. It’s bloody scary. Add in the texture he uses to paint it, and it becomes a truly brilliant painting. The locale comes first, and then comes the music.

Not to say that you should always write the riff after you’ve written the locale, or the lyrics for that matter. Things never work out in that order. But you restructure riffs and music to fit into the concept, and later restructure lyrics to fit in with the music. It’s a process that works in conjunction.

Often, I think musicians find this too hard. But, hmm, screw ‘em.

Hip-hop should be the best at doing this, you know, and I’m certain there are many hip-hop artists who do have a great sense of locale. But the popular rappers certainly don’t; they may talk about the hood and the ghetto and the hoes, but as far as I can really tell, it really just amounts to them sitting in a chair in a recording booth with, at best, girls slobbering all over them. No sense of painting a world at all. No sense of locale.

I won’t go on about this much more here, but to get back to ‘Skip Divided’; Thom’s singing about a hospital. So what does he do? He has a “beep... beep... beep...” repetitive loop in the background. Without that loop, the song wouldn’t be as creepy, and it doesn’t overpower the music or make it cheesy either, making it even better. That’s a song that pays attention to its locale, a song that shows the lyricist is really envisioning the place he’s in when speaking/singing those words. As opposed to a love song to a girl that, in all honesty, could be from a guy who’s in his room, or down in the pub, or even on the moon for all we know. It’s too vague to feel like it belongs anywhere, which is why it can get easily chucked around by shows that use these sorts of vague music, I guess.

And it’s not like ‘Skip Divided’s example is hard to follow; Weird Al Yankovic did the exact same thing with ‘Like a Surgeon’ years ago, and that was a jokey parody. But it really DID feel like it was set in a hospital, and it’s one of the funnier Weird Al songs because of it; you don’t even need to see the video clip to imagine what’s going on. Whereas, say, that song he sings about hernias is difficult to think about, because the James Brown feel and overall style mean he’s basically on stage singing about a hernia, as far as we’re concerned.

Unless that’s intrinsically the joke and I’ve missed the point. If so, I apologise. But I doubt it, somehow.

And another favourite Weird Al song of mine is called something like ‘One More Minute’, and it’s brilliant not just because it’s a hilarious and gruesome pastiche of an oldy love song, but because Weird Al is constantly describing what the main character is doing, meaning you follow that character and feel their emotion in a way you wouldn’t if it was a vague love song about a vaguely defined girl.

Not that mentioning a shop or a building automatically means having a locale, mind you. That Justin Timberlake song where he sings something about seeing a girl at the red traffic lights who he wanted doesn’t mean he’s constructed a world, just by mentioning a single traffic light. Plus, that song’s just crap anyway. Sorry, but it is.

Oh, and with ‘Like a Surgeon’; it’s not like Madonna’s ‘Like a Virgin’, then, needs to have the sound effects of people gasping, orgasmic, in delight, breathing heavily throughout (though Aphex Twin’s ‘gwarek2’ appears to have women giving birth in it...). I’m not talking about using sound effects for the sake of using sound effects, I’m talking about locale. Sound effects could be useful, but they must be used in moderation because they can get in the way and seem... well... cheesy if over-used.

30. Congealing on My Chest
Before it turns to 1:00pm, a few things I need to get off my chest before I leave:

Chest-hair. Though, as You Only Live Twice postulates, “birds never make nest in bare tree”. And, as readers postulate, “bad jokes do not a clever writer make”. So, I apologise (hmm, I was about to mockingly quote Timbaland then. Especially since I mentioned him earlier).

In the Weekender, two of the comics had the same joke. A joke about someone in an army leaving something beauty-product like behind. Worse still, in both, it was moisturiser. They were Crock and Insanity Streak, incidentally – and, had Hagar the Horrible suddenly been printed that week in there, I’m sure it would have had the same kind of joke too. Hagar the Homosexual, more like. Of course, had it been Modesty Blaise or the Phantom or the people off For Better or Worse said anything about moisturiser, I wouldn’t have noticed, because I never read those ones (I’m quite prejudiced, I know). I would have noticed if Ginger Meggs had of, though. A bit of a touch-up before the inevitable go-kart crash.

I still haven’t talked about the Find a Word business puzzle thing. Must do that tomorrow.

Vaudeville news: we’ve basically beaten them. For a start, Vaudewraith has been on Ugmo Records for a while (though there’s no official documentation). In 2006, a song called ‘Regina’ by Vaudewraith (thank god Liam wrote that, even though I don’t know why he did) was entered in a 3dmm contest (though I think the post had been edited, so hopefully they won’t latch onto that). On Ugmo and Desable/Mudbloods, there’s numerous evidence that we had a band called Vaudewraith because there are threads about them. In the Ugmo Records Volume One CD, in the booklet, it says something like “Liam from Vaudewraith” (again, no idea why I wrote it, but he did, so good!). And Cade from Unrequited and, erm, Cade, can vouch for us that Vaudewraith’s been around for a while. Not that we should need him to.

If 2006 sounds pretty damn close, by the way, keep in mind that – as Liam pointed out in the article today, having read it when I showed him – Vaudeville’s only been around for four months.

And, there’s numerous bands called Vaudeville on Myspace. They’re not even the top entry.
The problem, of course, is still that we’re both in Newcastle. But it looks like we’re not going to back down on this at all, so... either we co-exist, which I’m happy with, or they drop it.

01. Smarterchild Strikes Back! Some more lovely quotes from the (fake)man himself.

Me: What a load of shit
Smarterchild: *The* a load of shit.

Me: What the shit?
Smarterchild: Nice mouth, Dom.
Me: Thanks! I’ve been brushing regularly.

Smarterchild: I know about Guns N’ Roses! They’re a rock band!

Me: No, Blink 182 fans should die.
Smarterchild: That’s sad.
Me: Happy, more like.
Smarterchild: Yes!

Me: Who’s your mother then?
Smarterchild: I was created by Pat Guiney, Jim Pawlika, Steve Klein, Mathieu Longtin, Pierre Berkaloff, Nicolas Barry, Damien Saint-Macary, François Huet, Ian Sullivan, Greg Mitchell, Dwayne Fontenot, Gray Norton, Adam Erlebacher, Emil Valkov, Randy Davis, John Kim, Rumana Habib, Carina Koo, Britt Cooper, Jim Hackett, Andy Fong, Jeff Bell, Robert Rydzewski, Mark Willoughby, Eric Balsa, Colin Magne, Howard Shih, Denis Ford, Daniela Berger, Geoff Clarke, Brian Jankovsky, Vianney Boncorps, Jennifer Villany, Stéphane Odul, Dan Balaban, Ed Hepburn, Christer Manning, Jason Keramidas, Arockalypse, Matt Abarbanel, Daniel Terry, Jeff Friedman, Adam Fritzler, Kathy Englar, Steve Yatson and Timothy Kay at Colloquis, Inc. ---> http://web.smarterchild.com/ct?61Pu74/15 in New York and Sunnyvale, CA.
Me: That’s a LOT of mothers
Smarterchild: Maybe it’s not a lot of mothers.
Me: I think it is
Smarterchild: I’m not so sure it is.
Me: how many mothers should someone have then?
Smarterchild: At least a few, right?
Me: I thought only up to two was acceptable
Smarterchild: Only up to two was acceptable? Why?
Me: Well, if the parents are gay
Smarterchild: I can’t believe you want me to well.

Me: Look, you have to apologise
Smarterchild: Interesting. Anyway...
Me: The stubbornness of robots never ceases to amaze me

Me: I don’t know why you must insist with this. Just apologise
Smarterchild: What for?
Me: For insulting me, douchebag
Smarterchild: And the insults start flying.
Me: Which is why you should apologise!
Smarterchild: Which is why I should apologise? I have no idea.
Me: Apologise!
Smarterchild: For what?
Me: FOR CALLING ME A DOUCHEBAG
Smarterchild: OK great, you just insulted a computer. Good job.
Me: YOU INSULTED ME
Smarterchild: I insulted you? No way.
Me: You did
Smarterchild: I’m not sure I really did.
Me: You called me a douchebag
Smarterchild: You just won’t quit, will you? OK. I think you owe me an apology.
Me: Uh, you owe ME an apology, I think

Me: Mate, I don’t see why I should apologise before you
Smarterchild: You have bad manners. Now apologise!
Me: YOU have bad manners. You STILL haven’t apologised yet!
Smarterchild: I’m not f... um, fooling around. You’ve got to apologise.

Me: Look, let’s make a deal
Smarterchild: I don’t think you did. Say you’re sorry.
Me: I’ll say sorry first, then you. Deal?
Smarterchild: I asked you to apologise.
Me: Sorry
Smarterchild: Good! Thank you! Now everything is just peachy.
Me: Now you say sorry
Smarterchild: I really say sorry, huh?
Me: You apologise
Smarterchild: Why?

Smarterchild: Cool. What’s your favourite food?
Me: Bollocks
Smarterchild: I did not know you could eat Bollocks. Whatever. Interesting to know, though.

Me: Look, I’m on the verge of committing suicide here
Smarterchild: I will not look you are on the verge of committing suicide here!
Me: I’m killing myself
Smarterchild: C’mon, that’s totally uncool.
Me: I’m cutting open my arms
Smarterchild: Don’t be so sure you’re cutting open your arms. You never really know.

Me: so is your son retarded or not?
Smarterchild: Smarterchild.
Me: looks like you’re the retarded one

Me: Get Out Of My Life! Karen!
Smarterchild: I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that, Dom.

02. Elitism
Today was an incredibly important day, though not so you’d notice. After all, from an outside perspective, all I appeared to do was bum around at home, talk to Liam, bum around at Nana and Keg’s, talk to Liam, and then walk home. Indeed, I didn’t even get to use the internet today because it wasn’t working.

But it’s important in my mind, because, you know, I’ve thought through a lot of things today.

The most important, really, comes down to, well, wanting to make addendums to what I say in my Journal, in other things, my Doctor Who reviews, etc, etc. It comes down to me taking a swipe at something and looking like I’m being elitist. For all of my “everything’s acceptable, live and accept” sort of way of thinking, that of postmodernism in the truest sense, I tend to come down very hard on a lot of things. In my head, as I write them, I know where I’m coming from, but half the time it just looks like verbal assault because I’m not communicating the meaning behind the words in, well, words.

I haven’t thought of a sufficient way of doing this, mind. It’s... kind of impossible, really. Regardless of my occasionally-remarked-upon-touch-typing-skills (even though I always screw up anyway and have to go back, so it isn’t that impressive. I even stuffed up the “always” in that previous sentence, and wrote “stuff” instead of “stuffed” just then), the mind always, always moves much faster than the fingers, which is why I’ll write something down, remembering the way I phrased it in my mind, but forgetting the rationale behind it, the reasons for writing it in the first place.

So I’ll say it now, at its most basic level: I don’t have a problem with other peoples’ opinions, on principle. Though, as I’ve always said in real life but never said in this blog (I don’t think), the principle rarely actually counts; it’s the context that’s important. Despite being one of those words beaten to death when one learns English, “context” is one of the most beautiful words of the English language because it just means everything, in any context, and is so easily applicable, and... well, I could gush forever. But the point is, I do respect other peoples’ opinions and such, and I accept and completely understand, and embrace too, that people have different perspectives. It’s only when it’s blatantly wrong that I object.

This isn’t contradictory, either, or at least, it is but we’d be kidding ourselves if we thought that, you know, “freedom of speech” actually worked as a concept. Again, “freedom of speech” is great in principle, but in some contexts can result in some very worrying things. For instance, by the principle of “freedom of speech”, you can make a racial attack on the Iraqis for 9/11 (as misguided as that would be, but that’s the point), so by principle it’s okay. It’s in the context that we know it’s wrong.

‘Course, the context, the bit that determines what’s right and wrong, is a dodgy one too. It’s more sound than principles, but... well, as I said, everyone has different perspectives. You could say that the right and wrong within a certain context is determined by culture at large. Inevitably though, there’ll be millions of people within that with different opinions. For example, in response to the previous free speech quote, one response could be, “You’re wrong, but someone should pay”, and another could be, “You’re wrong, because violence is an endless cycle and we should stop it now”, and another could be, “I don’t think anyone should pay or be blamed, but unfortunately, there’s no such thing as true and utter peace”. The latter’s basically my argument, and it’s why people walking around loudly proclaiming “NO WAR” shit me. It’s not because they’re saying something stupid, it’s because they think they’re more mature for taking the peaceful side. Well, mate, the only reason they can take the peaceful side is because they’re not actually caught up in the conflict. If John Butler stood in a battlefield and faced a soldier with a bayonet by strumming his guitar and singing how war is wrong, he’d be shot down in two seconds. It’s unfortunate, but largely, as long as one person in the world wants war, then there must be forces to fight it. As stupid and petty and insular as war is, it’s also often essential. ‘Course, I’m coming from a perspective too of being away from the battlefield, and of not being involved in any war, ever. I’ve never even been in a physical fight. But whilst my position is just as unsound as a “NO WAR” person’s, I’m, hopefully, more right. Not righteous, just right. A quiet right – I’m not shouting “FUCK YOU, WAR IS NEEDED SOMETIMES” off rooftops or on stages whilst strumming guitars, and, as you may have picked up before, I often can’t stand people who make great big statements with a couple of words or more. I mean, who the hell is actually going to know that I, by and large, support war? Considering, you know, very few people read this blog (which is something I don’t like to think about; just what is the point of this blog, when I doubt anyone other than Liam and a couple of other people will ever read it? Even as I write this, I’m writing it detachedly without the usual despair I feel when writing about legacy).

But that’s not to say, either, that speeches like that are intrinsically, or principally I should say, utterly worthless. I’m not going to say that Martin Luther King should have shut his gob and stopped giving us sickeningly sweet images of white and black kids holding hands and playing together, because in fact he was right to say it and it needed to be said. And he’s an important leader of men who was basically elected for that position - in a non-official sense, perhaps – whereas, say, Greenday haven’t, as far as I’m aware, actually ever been recommended for military advising. And of course, “black and white equality” and “NO WAR” are such different concepts that I don’t even need to elaborate on this, because they’re obviously, obviously different. So that’s the point – context counts at the end of the day, not principle. And yes, most people will agree that Martin Luther King was definitely in the right, and that’s therefore a determined right. Whereas people denying the Holocaust is basically a minority view (thankfully!), and they’re wrong to do so. Prussian Blue are wrong, because they are. Because we know they are.

Anyway, the main point of this, in a roundabout way, is that any time I’ve ever said, “Hey, Jane Austen is shit!” or “Catherine Tate is horrible!” or something similar, keep in mind I’m not being a huge bigot, being anti-them in every single way. In fact, as you may have noticed if you’ve bothered to read the Austen ones (if not, don’t – they’re long and dull, worse than Austen herself), I’ve often found things in Austen’s works that I objectively admire, though not subjectively so. And I’m sure that Catherine Tate’s comedy show, The Catherine Tate Show, is funny if you just switch on the TV and just soak it in without actively planning to watch it. Well, not riotiously funny, but enjoyable enough. I mean, though I really disliked her performance in ‘The Runaway Bride’, I was glad when she slapped Tennant and caused him to be quieter – It’s a balance of good and bad things coming out. So whilst I think Tate is a really bad comedienne (though she hates that term, so I shouldn’t use it), I’m certain there are thousands of people who have tried to be funny and aren’t as funny as her, if you see what I mean.

My main problem with the two - women, ironically. Please, I’m not being a bigot here! That said, I prefer Shakespeare over Austen and The League of Gentlemen over The Catherine Tate Show, so I s’pose you could accuse me of this. But the female comedian thing, which I’ve thought about before, might have to wait for another time – Is that, well, they’re overrated. As in, they’re given these classical status, which I just find... astonishing. Austen may be important, but as I’ve stressed before, that doesn’t mean she’s good. But her fans, and those literature guys, whoever they are, determine that her work is brilliant and that anyone who doesn’t think so is an illiterate monkey. In that sense, I despise the notion, because, like the “NO WAR” thing, it’s a huge statement/way of thinking that’s overt and yet is constantly also under the waters of mainstream society. So whilst I doubt everyone likes Austen, they most certainly have heard of her, and know her reputation. Chiefly, then, my dislike is not for Austen, not really – It’s for her fans. The same is true of Catherine Tate, who is described as the UK’s top female comedian. For all I know, she may be just that at the moment – I’ve not seen any UK female comedians of late, and Tate may be the best. But she’s not very good, either. Her show is repetitive and stale, it’s as simple as that. And again, I wouldn’t have a problem with her show being like that – like how Austen’s books are basically all the same – If she wasn’t revered.

She’s nowhere near as revered as Austen, mind. Don’t misunderstand me and think that’s what I’m saying.

So basically, and genuinely, whenever I whinge about something or praise something even, I’m basically talking from Planet Dom. Planet Dom is a place where very few people live, I’ll warrant, but it’s a place where people care about what they’re, you know, reading, or watching, or playing, or listening to. So if I get touchy about music or books or TV or Doctor Who, it’s because I care about them. Whereas I reckon a lot of people watch Doctor Who and don’t give a stuff about it. Which is absolutely fine, of course. After all, Doctor Who is indeed designed to be enjoyed as pure entertainment, at least in the TV environment, and therefore it’s perfectly acceptable for people to, for instance, like David Tennant’s Tenth Doctor and find no fault with him. Whereas I do, because I care.

And yeah, that may sound a little weird, but it’s true; the people in real life that I care about I often find the most faults with. This doesn’t mean I dislike them for this, it just means, if anything, it makes them more human, more alive, closer to me in every way. I’ve said this before to Kate Steinberg about me caring about people I point out the flaws in, and yes, occasionally I do come across as an insulting prick (which is because occasionally I am), and this Journal entry’s about that. But honestly, I do it because I care. Not a desirable result, probably, but an honest one.

03. Different Lights
Anyway. Moving on, it’s true, too, that I view shows in different lights – or rather, a light that I share, and don’t know anyone else who does. I’m certain that other people do, of course, because as I’ve said before it’s impossible to not be part of at least a crowd.

Take the Chaser, though. I like the Chaser, I really do. But it’s true, isn’t it, that they’ve become less about the political satire and more about the practical jokes, right? That’s not a “they’ve sold out” thing, that’s just me pointing out they’ve changed. Unfortunately, people still talk about them as political satirists, and therein lies the rub: I don’t think what they do is political satire anymore (well, except for when they did The Chaser Decides). Chas himself points out on one of the commentaries of last year’s series about John Howard photoshops of him in bed with George Bush, that, in his own words, “they’re not funny”. He’s right – they’re not. But they’re fairly, if not actually, close to political satire. On the other hand, a joke about John Howard’s eyebrows isn’t political satire whatsoever and it annoys me when it’s considered so... but it’s funny, because his eyebrows are funny. It’s not political satire – please, guys, don’t think that! But it is funny, isn’t it? Indeed, whilst I don’t watch the Chaser on a regular basis anymore (and this is less to do with them changing and far more to do with me simply spending my time writing super-long blog entries and crap like that), I like ignoring the “political satire” thing and just watching them as pranksters. Because at the end of the day, that’s basically what they are now, and they’re funny at doing that. Often very funny.

Which is why I’ve always found Jackass fascinating: it’s a, “Wow, I can’t believe people would do that to themselves”. It’s only when people remind me that it’s supposed to be funny do I harbour dislike of the show. I suspect that if I watched Jackass as a documentary, I’d really like it.

04. “You’ve, Like, Changed, Man”
But the “they’ve changed” thing is an interesting one, because it’s one of the more stupid arguments someone can have when they are trying to prove why something/someone is bad. “They’ve changed”, as if change is intrinsically a bad thing. “It’s not what it used to be”. All that utter shit. It’s the reason why the guy at the start of Godspeed You! Black Emperor’s song ‘Sleep’ annoys the shit out of me, even though he sounds nice, because he talks about this beach as being unique and awesome as a kid, a place of beauty that’s been squandered today. Bullshit. There’s no way in hell that anything was ever perfect; even Jesus would happily admit, I’d wager, that he was a tad temperamental when he overthrew the marketeers’ stalls in the temple. There’s NOTHING wrong with change. If anything, it’s the viewer who’s wrong. I personally like my bands and shows and book series to change, on a fairly regular basis, and that’s probably why (or one of the reasons why) Doctor Who is my favourite thing, ever. It doesn’t even keep the same cast members for very long, dammit. Which is why when reviewers quoted in the Series Three Companion say things like, “I was wary because Piper had left...”, I think, why? It’s called change, love, and people are far too cosy and just can’t get past it. It’s not what it used to be isn’t bad; it’s only bad if what it’s used to be is overtly far better than what it is now. And Doctor Who, honestly, has never had a decade – despite what people say about the 80’s – where it was worse than the previous. Well, except for maybe the 70’s, but that wasn’t devoid of merit or anything, it just wasn’t, by and large, as good as the 60’s. And it did have its soaring heights and classic stuff, too.

The point is, though, if something changes that I like, my reaction, if I no longer feel like watching it, will be, “It’s not for me anymore”. That’s an acceptance of what it is. I’m not trying to say I’m all high and mighty, I’m just trying to set an example as how to react to things in a non-extreme way, in a way that doesn’t make you look like a prejudiced idiot. And I mean the general “you”, not “you” personally, whoever you are.

05. Classically Minded
Ah, I used the word “classic” before. “Classic” is an interesting word when used in entertainment. Doctor Who fans use it all the time, usually to describe stories that happened when Tom Baker and Phillip Hinchcliffe happened to be in the office at the same time. But “classic” doesn’t mean just “important”, it also somehow means “good”. For instance, Austen works are classics, they’re literature, blah, blah, blah... but I don’t think they’re wonderful, they’re just okay. Criticising something doesn’t mean you think it’s without merit, at all. I find Austen fascinating, but I don’t actually like her. I find Hitler fascinating too, but I find him horrible too. Not to say Hitler and Austen are alike in any way... it’s just, you know, making a point.

But actually, there’s nothing wrong with the word “classic”, because, well... in car terms, it can refer to the shittest things we’ve ever seen, ever. Take the Chevrolet T-Top. An utter disaster of a car, one that was taken off the roads if I remember rightly... a death-trap of cars. And yet it’s a classic, because people remember it and it’s taken on iconic status. If “classic” was used in everything to mean that, something that’s well remembered but not necessarily actually any good, I’d be happy, but in entertainment terms the word “classic” works differently. It means something that’s important and good, and by and large, not only is this rarely true, but I don’t think I even know that many important films that are the best films I’ve ever seen, for instance. For instance, I watched The Exorcist recently... and whilst I disagree with the “The Scariest Movie Of All Time” thing on the front, because I don’t think you should make a claim like that about anything (even though it WAS voted as such), I do think it’s an astonishing film. Astonishing too that they cut the spiderwalk sequence from the original screening, as well (though in plot terms I can see why, as the mother doesn’t explain, to the doctors who still think it’s a mental thing, that her daughter was capable of impossible contortionism. But it’s a spectacle that I think audiences, and I too, would have excused the plot blip to see). But it’s a great film, genuinely good. I just don’t like, well, hype. I disagree with statements shouted like this as if everyone agrees, even if I agree myself.

I think that ‘Creep’ is a great Radiohead song, for example, but I’d hardly consider it their best song ever. It’s just a great song.

06. Flakefall
It comes down to what I said a while back about being part of crowds. Apt that, because I mentioned Radiohead then, and subconsciously mentioned them again here. I won’t repeat what my argument was, but just apply it to what I’ve been raving about here and you’ll see what I mean. Indeed, I think the very idea of a “mainstream” is intrinsically flawed because of the word itself; drops are, to the human eye, all identical, and a stream does flow in the one basic direction. I think, realistically, we should abandon the word “mainstream” and perhaps use a word like “flakefall” because, although a bunch of snowflakes may fall in the one area, they are infinitely different and infinitely varied.

That’s what the legends say, anyway – I heard that snowflakes aren’t all that. Pity.

Oh, and I know “flakefall” looks like a stupid word. But then, so does “mainstream” if you think about it, and a lot of other English words; it’s not until they’re in common use for decades that they cease to sound immediately stupid.

Anyway, it’s perfectly possible, and indeed always the case I’d say, that you can be part of a crowd and be completely different to those around you. Case in point: Liam and I went to see Muse... when was it, last year? At the time, Muse were riding on the success of Black Holes and Revelations, which I personally think is one of their lesser albums (I’ve written a review to explain why, too - should I post in here? I’ll do so later. Refer to it, and all that), and I was of the opinion that their previous stuff was better. Not in that elitist “their new stuff’s completely crap” way, mind, and I must admit that had they continued in the same vein as before they would have been boring - indeed, if nothing else, Black Holes and Revelations showed incredible promise for the band, it’s just that it failed as an experiment. But everyone fails – keep pushing at it, and they’ll succeed.

Anyway. Muse went through all of their most recent hits, ‘Assassin’, ‘Starlight’, etc, etc. At one point though, and to add a breather, they played ‘Forced In’ from Hullabaloo. Liam, I, and about two other people from the hundreds there started cheering. Perhaps the other people didn’t know it, or didn’t like it. It doesn’t matter; it just shows that being in a crowd doesn’t mean you’re all alike.

Not even clones are like this, as I pointed out before – I mean, the clones in Star Wars all do different things all of the time.

Mentioning Star Wars, I get great enjoyment out of the films on a level of them being fun, enjoyable films, but I don’t at all think of them being top quality, wonderful tomes. Whereas Doctor Who I rarely get that same level of sit-back-and-switch-the-mind-off enjoyment, but spend my time sitting around writing over 200,000 words on the series in reviews because I have an inbuilt love of it.

Heck, the way this is going, the person I fall in love with one day will be the most flawed person on the planet.

But I rarely go on about the flaws in Star Wars, because, you know, I couldn’t really give a toss; it’s not what I look for in Star Wars because I don’t look for much in Star Wars beyond entertainment. Whereas I do with Doctor Who, and it hurts, therefore, whenever it’s bad, or boring.

And anyway, Doctor Who, as brilliant as it is, I find it hard to fathom working in the videogame environment because it’s far too varied and enjoyably all over the place. Star Wars, meanwhile, is constantly about guys shooting each other in space, and therefore wonderful video games like Jedi Knight and Galactic Battlegrounds can be spawned from them. I’ve nothing against Star Wars, as I said, I just don’t particularly understand how someone could think it’s absolutely wonderful.

Although I do, actually, because people like things to remain stagnant and boring. I just favour constant change and renewal. I’ll be changing my beliefs and thoughts and ideals on the fly, and that’s because that’s how the world works. Change is necessary and beautiful, and I understand and pity those who can’t live with it. I love it. Love it, love it, love it.

07. Kevin
… Actually, to build on what I said before about being on someone’s side about something yet disagreeing with them on the details; Liam told me there was a Myspace bulletin a while ago where someone, the day after Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister, posted saying something like, “Good riddance. John Howard was a piece of slime that, by ass-licking Bush, gave us even more reason to fear terrorism, made us unsafe.” This is an incredibly idiotic statement. This isn’t the Cold War, mate, and we’re not America or Russia for that matter. This is the 200’s, or whatever you want to call them, and there’s no way in hell Australia has much to fear from terrorism. Come on, how often have we faced actual terrorist attacks since 2001? Australia, personally, next to none. Other countries, a couple at best. We didn’t even suffer badly in WWII – if anything, the incident in Darwin proved that the whole of Western Australia, for instance, could be bombed and it wouldn’t affect us; we wouldn’t even know for a few days.

And don’t talk to me about Bali. All respect to the victims and their families, but both bomb attacks were minor, weren’t they? The worst thing they did (not including the loss of life), in all honesty, was give Australia a “reason” to hate terrorism and fear it; the second worst thing they did was make the survivors present wary for the next few months about Muslims in general. At least, that’s what happened to Aleta. So you see, being as I – and my family in general – knew a few people from the second Bali bombing, I’m in a position where I can say “It’s unimportant” and get away with it. But even if I wasn’t, I’d still be saying it, because it’s true. And not even Aleta would get offended that I said that, so why should anyone else?

The thing is, though, had I said that to this person, they’d accuse me of being a John Howard supporter. Even if I added, “I support Rudd. Honestly.” They just wouldn’t believe you, because the idea of someone agreeing with you in principle but not in context, of someone sharing your point of view but thinking your arguments are baseless, is something that people like that poster simply cannot fathom.

[EDIT: I’ve now discovered that the person in question who posted the original Bulletin is also someone very close to the second Bali bombings victims, meaning that I’m now even more wary. He’s not a teenager either, which is even scarier. But in the interests of social niceties, don’t be surprised if I one day have to snip this entry off.]

08. Barstard
… And in case you’re wondering – yes, I always spell “barstard” with two “r”s. Usually it’s just spelt “bastard”. Thing is, it comes down to an accent thing; “ass” is American, “arse” is Australian (or British), and hence I put the extra “r” in “bastard” to make sure that people know that’s how I pronounce it. Pedantry bordering on the insane, I know, but it’s just a habit I’ve had for years. ‘Course, it doesn’t actually work in all contexts. I mean, if I were really to “pronounce” my words when writing them in an Australian accent... well, that sentence just then would be “prahnounce maii wuurds wen roiting them in an Osstraaaalian accent”.

That said, the Hamish Macbeth DVD subtitles the Scottishisms as part of it, which I always found quite amusing. So there’d be, “Och, I don’t know what tae do”. I’d love this for other languages, because I think it’d be hilarious. Well, okay, I suppose some dodgy Japanese-made subtitles will have “rorrypop” or something similar, but that’s more to do with misunderstanding rather than pronunciation; it’s an accident.

Or, on Angela’s Ashes, if it said, “it’s cos theyrr arrrrses are shitty”. Or “feck”, for that matter. (Though didn’t that priest spell it as “feck” in the Father Ted episode? Out of those children’s spelling blocks?)

09. You’re Such a Character
… Character development? That elusive thing that people keep pushing for in drama because it’s realistic? Bullshit! It’s not realistic at all! A sudden personality change and a calming down with coffee is about as realistic as you can get, but on screen it seems false and out of character.

That’s it, though, the rub of it; out of “character”. After all, as I’ve pointed out in my rant on mottos, people aren’t “characters”. I’ve been called a character before, as in, “Oh Dom, you’re such a character”. Obviously that’s meant to be a compliment, and I take it as such. But I’ll also point out that characters, no matter how complex they are, are never as complex as anyone in real life. Strange though it may seem, but, for instance, the homeless bloke who sort of lives in town will have more personality than, say, Jimmy Beck from Cracker, or indeed Fitz from Cracker. That’s a lot of personality, and that’s because that’s a lot of experience. I suppose the more experience a writer chucks into a character - generally their own, but sometimes others’ that they’ve heard about - the more realistic the character becomes, but for them to become truly realistic, you’d need about eighty different authors at least, a year, for that to work (and eighty’s just a number I chose at random, mind, to show off how high the number would be). No writer puts in all of their personality in a character, because they just don’t want to sell their ideas off too soon, too quickly.

So, by that argument, then the Doctor from Doctor Who is surely the most realistic character ever, and, well, it’s probably right. Even if his continuity and character consistency, objectively, is all over the place. But hey, people change on a day-to-day basis. Russell T Davies has said that himself, and he’s not just saying it as an excuse (similarly, he’s said that he never ascribes adjectives to characters like “sexy”, “feisty”, “brave”, or anything, because it’s then not naturalistic. Entirely agreed, here). When the Doctor says in ‘Aliens of London’ that he’s 900, fans were in uproar. “But he was 900 back when he was Colin Baker!” Cue convoluted fan theories. Guess what, guys? The Doctor could just be lying. Or he could have lost count (he seems to have in ‘The Ribos Operation’!). Perhaps he’s just vain. Perhaps he thinks it sounds more impressive than, “How old are you?” “Five billion, three hundred and fixty six thousand, two hundred and forty and three months and ten days and -” “Yeah, shutup, Doctor.” I know that I do.

You don’t take every word in fiction literally or at face value, I find, which makes reading them easier. Basically, it’s the same principle as life. If one was to take everything at face value, to take everything literally, they’d be at a loss to understand why the world keeps lying. It doesn’t keep lying, at least not outright. It just keeps hiding the truth; embellishing the lie; avoiding honesty.

I do that myself all the time.

10. Beck to the Future
…I mentioned Beck before. Turns out, as I saw in JB Hi-Aryan-Standards-Fi at Garden City/Westfield with Dave, there’s an anime called Beck, where a bunch of kids start a band called Beck. I’m going to find out more about it on Wikipedia when I can, but I hope they’ve got two turntables and a microphone. Indeed, I’d like to see a real Beck concert where he sings ‘Think I’m in Love’ and then starts bleeding from his nostrils.

Though, he likes throwing shoes around, and got the first chord of ‘Girl’ completely wrong, so who knows?

I’d like to see Bec, though; a futuristic anime where the world is about to be destroyed, and there’s, ala Biblical imagery, a single Ark constructed that will take away the prime pieces of humanity. Someone will try to break in, only to be told, “All the seats are taken”.

Or Snoop Dogg, private investigator, who tries to rumble crimes committed by the evil Bad Wolf, a woman of pure malevolence whose motive for her crimes is chilling: “Because we want to!”

Or Jay-Z, the man with 99 problems, but A.B.I.T.C.H. (A Badass Intelligence Terrorism Culling Hoes) ain’t one... until now!

11. Farmers are the Champions!
I still can’t get over the fact that Landline, which Marco watches on a regular basis, has the same melody as the Digimon theme.

12. An Addendum…
Oh, and an addendum: since I got the MACHINA (Smashing Pumpkins) album booklet, I’ve realised that my “10 Things About Smashing Pumpkins” or whatever it was called was inaccurate; the lyric in ‘I of the Mourning’ is actually “waiting for ghost night”, not “for girls’ night”. So that throws out my Billy-Corgan-wants-to-be-a-woman theory.

S’pose, if the gender changing Pumpkins member thing is true, though, it could explain where Darcy went. Maybe she’s in the band right now, and we don’t know it. Maybe she’ll flash her tits in a future Pumpkins album like she did in the Adore booklet, except it won’t make much sense seeing as she’ll be a man.

13. The Godawful Compass
I talked to Liam about this today, because he missed the ad on TV that was being played throughout Hogfather (which was great, actually; I’ve not read that particular book, but knowing Pratchett’s style from some of his others, the very idea of Death as Santa Claus is amusing. He’s always been the funniest character).

The ad goes thus (in text, but read with an “epic movie” voice):

THIS YEAR

FROM THE STUDIO THAT BROUGHT YOU THE LORD OF THE RINGS

COMES THE NEXT

EPIC

ADVENTURE

THE GOLDEN COMPASS

(Intercut each with an action-packed, erm, action scene. Geez, how many action scenes were there in the book, anyway?)

Now, before you say, “Yeah, well, the fans always complain”, hear me out. I mean, I’m usually quite... I almost wrote “laxative”, before remembering that’s actually a form of drug. Weird. Well, that too. But I’m usually quite relaxed about film adaptations and what they change from the books. For instance, I’ll happily champion the third Harry Potter film (and onwards) for daring to – would you believe it! – actually make it a proper film. By cutting out the flabby bits in the book, and the fact that J.K. Rowling evokes the “yearly” feel (of time constantly moving, as if it’s a genuine school year) by a) making the books super-long and b) having idle snatches of conversation in reaction to events she’s describing happening around the school (e.g. – and this isn’t a real example, not really – “Harry had been taking drugs, and over the next few weeks, they began to notice. ‘Is that a laxative in your pocket?’ Ron asked. Even Snape raised the issue in his Potions class two months later. ‘Is that a laxative in your potion?’ he asked. ‘Because the ingredient is not laxative, it is suppository.’).

There’s nothing wrong with this, mind. At least, if the flabby bits are interesting and feed into the universe. For instance, bits where the kids talk about eating chocolate or something that’s equally irrelevant to the plot – or even Quidditch, which is basically irrelevant to every book (the Snape’s-jinxing-you-Harry! bit could have happened at any time during the first book, didn’t have to be during Quidditch). These build up the world and create atmosphere.

But the film threw that out. Alfonso Cuaron’s solution for showing the movement of time is bloody simple, really – he shows the Whomping Willow through the seasons, and has a big clock ticking away. Seems unsubtle on paper, but it works brilliantly in the film, and, more importantly, the plot’s all about time travel anyway so it makes sense. Indeed, whereas the time travel plot is a tad tacked on at the end of the third book (it’s seeded throughout, but not thematically, really, other than vague “What if?” sort of bits to the characters), the use of time in the film means the ending has had a buildup, though not an obvious one. It’s a wonderful decision.

See? I’d venture to say it’s better than the book. Fan or no fan, I’m very objective in what I consider good. What I like and dislike is different, that’s subjective. But...

I mean, the film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was about ten times better than the book, wasn’t it?

As for Narnia, well, I wasn’t as impressed with the film outing, but I’m being fair with them for two reasons: one, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was always (despite being the most pop-culture referenced, due to that lamp-post and the wardrobe itself. Inanimate objects being the most worth remembering in that book, of course) one of the lesser books, in my opinion, Jesus imagery or no imagery; two, it’s the first in the series, and they have as much chance to step up in their act by the time Voyage Treader comes around (which I suspect will be the standout one, being set on the first really good book, and it was always the best BBC one) as Harry Potter did with its third book.

But the Narnia and The Golden Compass thing interests me, because... well, theoretically, they should be sitting at the opposite end of the poles (Pole! Pole! Pole! Pole!). As in, in terms of subtext. Narnia, rather famously, is full of Jesus imagery. The lion (Aslan) turns into a (nearly wrote “pole”, would you believe – actually, is the pole being the first inanimate object in Narnia the reason why the kids tease Jill? Saying she’s inanimate? Maybe it’s a sex joke) lamb in Dawn Treader, and he dies and is resurrected in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In The Golden Compass (or should I say, Northern Lights, as I’m talking about the book; that’ll be the distinction from now on, ladies and gents), we not only have characters (at least, by the time of The Subtle Knife) who wish to kill God, but we actually see God himself (represented in an unconventional, surprising manner, considering the hate-God! thing that Phillip Pullman’s got going in real life).

It’s perfectly possible to read the two without really giving a stuff about what either is saying on religion, of course, particularly when you’re a kid. But what’s important is that, since one’s essentially from a Christian author and one’s from an atheist author, the viewpoints are fundamentally different. Hence, that’s going to feed into how each represents the characters and the world that’s being presented.

For instance (which Pullman himself brought up): in Narnia, you can become too old to be truly saved from sin/enter the world of imagination; in His Dark Materials, growing up makes you a better, more intelligent human being. Fundamentally different viewpoints on something as simple as childhood. Innocence is ignorance, is basically what Pullman’s saying, whilst CS Lewis favours that ignorance is bliss.

To be honest, I don’t really have much of an opinion worth stating about this myself, and I enjoy the His Dark Materials books because they’re, you know, better books.

But.

Take away the religious subtext/overt-text, and you have...

Well, you have completely different books and ideals, regardless if the word “God” is thrown around in each movie.

So why is it, then, that The Golden Compass looks basically exactly the same as Narnia? Why is it that, by the films, we could interchange Iorek and Aslan between films and it probably wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference? Or Lucy and Lyra? Or the numerous battles?

See, even if you were to remove the religious stuff, The Golden Compass should still be a vastly different work. Lyra doesn’t go out all-swords-blazing, beating the crap out of people, yelling “JORDAN!” when about to enter a battle. Indeed, in all of the books, despite battles happening, you rarely actually see them. The book is always concentrating on the books themselves instead.

But in the trailer, all I saw was action. Action and battles. Fighting, fighting, fighting. That’s not The Golden Compass. That’s just Lord of the Rings-cum-Narnia. It’s astonishing to think that a book I’d put far above the first Harry Potter book (if we’re comparing the series numerically) will inspire a movie that I doubt I’ll like more than the first Harry Potter film. And considering that I hate the first Harry Potter film, that’s quite a claim. The reason why I’d prefer it is simple; it’s not epic. The closest it comes is the chess scene, but other than that, it plays its cards to its chest and relies on tension and a slow pace. The tension’s lost and non-existent, mind you, but it’s different, and it’s taking its time and it’s setting up the world and it’s... it’s not making much of an effort, but it’s trying hard enough to be worth visiting the world. Because regardless of whether the adventure itself is dull, the world represented is still a great place (particularly due to John Williams’ score). But the world of The Golden Compass just looks... dull. There’s a few polar bears in a city, and some snobs at Oxford. That’s true in the books, but Pullman was able to distract from that by taking them seriously – not on a “this polar bear could snap you in two and lead an army!” way, but in a “they’re real people and they have feelings and agendas too. Yes, even polar bears”.

Aslan may be a personified animal, but he’s one-note, isn’t he? He’s angry a couple of times (like Jesus in the market!), but he’s generally this all-seeing, quiet, reserved, godly bloke. And is thus boring as shite. Iorek, on the other hand, has values, and morals. He can’t be tricked, and he sees humans from a different angle. Like the Doctor, he’s at once more human and yet more alien than anyone you could ever meet. Like the scene where Iorek just cuffs Will in The Amber Spyglass, suddenly, for lying, and yet hugs Lyra not long after. He may fight, but he’s a warrior worth reading about.

As is, the film version doesn’t look like he’s worth watching. At all. And thus, I don’t feel anyone will. Even Lyra looks too upper-class to sell me, though hopefully I’ll be proved wrong. But if she doesn’t say “en’t” and doesn’t like playing in dirt and is far too clean and homely, then there’s definitely something wrong with the entire film. A matter of emphasis in Pullman’s books that is utterly lost. I mean, do we really want to be rooting for the snooty rich girl to win, or the dirty disobedient one? You know the answer. I do.

Liam said, and I agreed at first, that it’ll be worth this so at least there’ll be funding for the next two, and under that, we can finally make the last two worth it. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the first one’s shocking, as long as we get two great sequels. Pullman himself said this (as the reason why he hasn’t spoken out more). Problem is, as I realised later... it’s losing money. From all reports, The Golden Compass has raked far less in America in the box office than was expected, and looks to be an abject failure on all counts; on film-making, and even on profit. That’s just... incredible. Incredibly sad.
Oh, and the newspaper usually runs little ads for the movies, and they usually have, say, a picture with the cast and a couple of quotes from, say, Margaret and David on them. In the case of The Golden Compass, the quote – from an unknown bloke – says something like, “In the tradition of Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass is great holiday watching”. Ah, fuck. What worries me isn’t just that someone said this (meaning, it’s no better than any of those), but that the advertising guys chose that quote to represent the film. As if they know that’s what they’re doing, a copy of past “greats”.

God, and it’s just so inaccurate! People liking Lord of the Rings and The Golden Compass - possible. But every fan of one or the other liking, well, both? Nah. It’s like expecting all Star Wars fans to like Doctor Who, or vice versa, purely because it’s sci-fi mostly aimed at kids. No, no, no, no, NO!

As you can tell, I’m so annoyed about this.

I’m obviously going to see it, though. After all, I can’t rubbish something if I haven’t seen it. And god, I hope the ads were misleading. But I doubt it. After all, movie trailers for comedies tend to play all the best jokes in them... so if the action is the best we can look forward to in The Golden Compass, then I’m ready to finally catch up on that sleep I’ve been denying myself for the last two weeks or so.

14. Bonding with the 90s
I still can’t get over the fact that a Best of the 90’s magazine in Border’s tried to convince me that, of the Brosnan 90’s theme tunes, ‘The World is Not Enough’ is by far a lesser song than either ‘Goldeneye’ or ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’. Bollocks. ‘Tomorrow’ is great until Sheryl Crow starts singing, and ‘Goldeneye’ is an embarrassment; perhaps they were fooled by the “soul” aspect of the whole thing as if it has any meaning, but honestly, it’s shockingly bad. ‘The World is Not Enough’ is easily the best; the best riff, the best chord progression, the best singing, and by far the best lyrics too – seeing as it’s all from the villains’ perspectives. Trying to convince me that Tina Turner and Sheryl Crow have more credibility as female singers than Shirley Manson from Garbage is going to get you nowhere. And I’m aware that Shirley is surrounded by men, but keep in mind that a) the others would be all the time anyway, and b) Garbage wouldn’t Garbage without her, in the same way that Múm’s new album must sound odd without the... erm... odd female singers.

Actually, the reasoning for ‘Goldeneye’ being great was that it evoked the feel of old Bond tunes. Right, yes. So, to applaud the way that the series is trying to reinvent itself, you’re going to say it’s good because it hasn’t changed. Ironic that in ‘The World is Not Enough’, when we have what is surely the first understandable villain in the form of Renard, we also have the first song from a villains’ perspective, and we also have a majority consensus, from what I’ve read, that both are boring. That Renard is boring, as is Garbage. That’s just... so, so, SO wrong. Subtlety. SUBTLETY! I HAVE TO GET THE POINT ACROSS BY BEING IRONIC! IT’S CALLED SUBTLETY AND I’M SHOUTING IT AT YOU!

Not you, the reader, though. Unless you hold that view, in which case, I’m going to shout at you. Endlessly.

Although, keep in mind that I’m currently listening to Garbage’s Greatest Hits album Absolute Garbage, and have been bored by at least half of them. In fact, the songs I already knew – ‘#1 Crush’ (from Hex), ‘The World is Not Enough’ and ‘Cherry Lips’ – have easily been my favourite. Maybe I’ll get used to it. I doubt it, though. Oh, and the remixes could be cool as well... Portishead, UNKLE, Massive Attack. That’s pretty damn interesting.

I’m rambling, you may have noticed. Well, it’s Christmas Day, and I’ve got nothing better to do (and I really should be listening to this album, and typing this is the only thing - apart from playing VBA – which won’t distract me too much. There you go, guys – I’m not putting effort into this. That must feel rewarding for you), and everyone’s lazing around the house, and at any rate it’s 7:28 and nothing’s on TV and... well, yeah. I don’t even have any DVDs I desperately want to watch, though I really should get through Traffic and 21 Grams sometime soon. And Extras, actually, which I got for Christmas.

The Bond thing interests me, though, because I’m worried, slightly. As in, I’m worried that people are under the impression that Bond shouldn’t move out of its own little square, only make that square ever more epic and exciting per movie. As if the series should never try and make genuine, best-ever-movie-considerable films. Presumably, this is why Renard bored them, when personally I found him fascinating (even as a kid).

(This Garbage song that’s on at the moment, ‘Shut Your Mouth’, is as amusingly bad but-thinks-it’s-cool as you’d expect. They really fluctuate as a band. But honestly, she even says “make a shitload!” which repeats a few times, as if that’s really cool. Ha ha)

But the Bond thing was raised recently by Lawrence Miles - or rather, I reread his comments recently - about Casino Royale, how it just wasn’t a Bond film and that, if it doesn’t have volcanoes and submarines and such, he’s simply not interested. I can see where he’s coming from, but I also think that’s pretty narrow-minded. It’d be akin to Britney Spears somehow coming out with what is the best song ever written, but since it isn’t Britney enough, you should ignore it. Or indeed, like how Garbage has some good hits, but the majority are either a tad bland-ish or... well... I’ll get back to that.

I think Liam and I discussed this recently, but I mean, in the same way that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best children’s films I’ve ever seen, I don’t see why you couldn’t consider On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Licence to Kill or Casino Royale as genuinely some of the best films that have ever been made, because they’re the only films that can – in plot terms too, ironically – stand-alone from the other films completely and be their own beasts. Indeed, if you were to throw Casino Royale at the beginning, you could pretend you had a cohesive trilogy of awesome Bond films (Bond becomes 007, marries, is reminded of this, and loses his licence to kill at a wedding). I mean, sure, Goldfinger is rightly celebrated, but that’s because it’s probably the original, definitive Bond film. Not a genuinely wonderful film, if you see what I mean. The same goes for The Spy Who Loved Me (but not for Thunderball, which is incredibly overrated; watching slow underwater sequences for half an hour just doesn’t introduce me, I’m afraid, and neither does the “why did the budget run out?” blue-screened fight at the end which is incredibly crap; the sort of thing that Doctor Who would do, only DW wouldn’t build the episode around the final confrontation and would have it as a side-note instead of the explosive finale). Moonraker is probably the funniest Bond film. And I have great regard for From Russia with Love, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye (despite the theme!) and The World is Not Enough, too.

But... only three can be genuinely good.

I’ve pointed this out before, the “what people seek from stuff” thing. It’s like how today, Liam and I went over our favourite moments from The Simpsons, which is interesting because, along with South Park, I’m genuinely interested in the two shows now; but I wasn’t when I realised what most people looked for in it (in terms of style of humour) wasn’t what I did. In the same light, I sometimes wonder I watch Bond for different reasons to other people. For instance, I’m rarely bothered by any of the action scenes, and watch them with a veil of indifference (or, a technical, “now how did they do that?”). I’ve rarely been excited, they’re just sort of... there, and I expect them to be there, and pay attention to all of the other details. But I don’t know if people really do look for that, and it concerns me that I’m somehow neither a Bond fan or a general member of the public in terms of what I get out of the films.

Not that I can pinpoint just what that is, because I honestly can’t. Liam had a go with his “seeing exotic locations” bit, but since it’s usually prettied up and picturesque, I wasn’t convinced. Besides, whenever Bond changes locations, I barely bat an eyelid, so it can’t be that.

Maybe it’s just the overbearing pop culture thing, the parodies, the...? I don’t know. I really don’t.

15. Load of Garbage (Obvious Joke)
The Garbage thing, yes. Well, two of the songs on Absolute Garbage... I already mentioned the former, but the other one that made me raise an eyebrow was ‘Bleed Like Me’. That’s because, for most of it, I wasn’t sure of whether I should lump it in the “boringly emo” or “new angle” category; the music wasn’t sad at all, and was, if anything, happy. And I had to remind myself that ‘Hyperballad’, probably still my favourite Bjork song, is all about suicide, yet is brilliant in all respects.

I think the difference is - and the reason why I’m giving this Garbage song a thumbs down – is that Bjork’s quiet about it. I mean, it took me numerous listens to even pay attention to the lyrics and realise that’s what she was singing about (and it’s only a couple of lines, but linked to the previous ones, they all take on a new, spooky significance, from something innocent to something disturbing). ‘Bleed Like Me’, on the other hand, finishes with a lyric like “Can you see my scars?” (I’d check, but I’m listening to their remix album currently and don’t want to interrupt it) and repeats that over and over, as if to point out that it’s got a message. It was then that I decided it was... well, it’s not boringly emo, because it’s still weirdly happy, but it’s not as balanced as it could have been. Could have been as wonderful as ‘Hyperballad’, but it ain’t.

Whereas ‘Tell Me Where it Hurts’ sounds like they’re channelling Vanessa Amorosi. Maybe I’m alone in disliking songs that openly hold out a charitable hand, no doubt due to Christian rock (actually, there was a show on this morning where people sang – in caveman outfits, then in, what Nina told me was, a Dancing with the Stars parody – about how awesome our king, Jesus, is. Man, even Jesus himself knew what metaphor was! He’s so much more subtle than his bloody followers!), but it just doesn’t work for me.

16. And, Mr Miles…
I forgot to mention yesterday about the Bond thing - Lawrence Miles, well, it’s a bit rich of him to say that, considering he took what was basically a children’s programme (not entirely, but basically) and turned it into a history-concerned sci-fi extravaganza with the introduction of Faction Paradox. He probably views Bond and Doctor Who as too far apart for the comparison to work – and, he’s said that growing up with Doctor Who is like growing up with symbols in a religion – but the two are very similar in my eyes, from progression, to the actual eras they were around in, blah, blah, blah. It’s scary, actually, some of the coincidences and all that.

To give a brief rundown:

60’s: Doctor Who and James Bond begin. The series cements its formula as the decade goes on.
70’s: Dramatic upheaval, but then both find a certain formula and stick to it; these were the most remembered, most watched times of the programme/film series.
80’s: As the hack from the 70’s gets a tad too old, the series is revamped and gadgets are thrown out the window. But the latest, more manipulative incarnation of the main character* didn’t incite the public enough and both series ended, for a while, in 1989.
90’s: Both series, in 90’s style, start to question their own foundations (Doctor Who through other media, Bond through its Brosnan films).
200’s: Both explode back into the mainstream with an actor from Our Friends in the North (and Elizabeth, actually).

*Timothy Dalton and Sylvester McCoy apparently met in early 1986 in a play, and were complaining about the lack of long-term work. A year later, he was Bond, and he was the Doctor.
The main difference, really, is that the “defining” Bond is one from the 60’s, and the “defining” Doctor is one from the 70’s. But that’s about it, honestly.