Yet more Musical Mediocrity - the Brit Awards 2014!

Once again, we are zooming towards February, which means we will soon be at that wonderful time when we are informed about what has been utterly shite in the world of music this year. I am, of course, talking about the BRIT awards. So, to carry on my long-held tradition (see my blogs for 2013, 2012 and 2010 - I never did one for 2011), I shall have a look at the nominations for British Single of the Year and give you my unique take on them all...

As always, I listen to as much of the song as I can stand, and then tell you what I thought - I hope you are ready - here goes...

Bastille - Pompeii

How long did I last? 2:39

Impressions: It sounds quite 80's. Is that a thing now? I thought we had revisited the 80s a few years ago and had moved on since then. I'm not a fan of extending a one syllable word over six notes, especially how often they do it, but at least the song sounds unique overall - it's not something I'd be likely to mix up with anything else...

It's not perfect, by any means, and it does feel a little like they were worried about listeners getting bored, particularly in the second verse where there are about four different accompaniment styles over the space of two lines...

And then, in the middle, it decides to abandon it's individuality and stages it's very own breakdown, cutting back to just vocals and piano, before adding backing vocals, then drums... like EVERY POP SONG OF THE LAST TEN YEARS HAS DONE!*

(*Note: I have no actual proof of this, it just feels like this is the case)

But this wasn't terrible. Maybe the quality of music has improved over the last year? Maybe I've become more tolerant?

Rating: 6/10

Calvin Harris and Ellie Goulding - I Need Your Love

How long did I last? 0:37

Impressions: I have not become more tolerant. This song started and all of the horrendous memories of years past doing this blog came flooding back.

Before I go any further, I must confess an automatic prejudice against this song - I very much dislike Ellie Goulding. In the several of her songs I have unfortunately heard, her common theme appears to be the fact that she cannot pronounce any kind of consonants whatsoever, instead preferring to just breath down a microphone with the implication that some of the noises she makes may at one point have been words.

And while we're on the subject of musicians that I could not possibly give two fucks about, welcome back Calvin Harris - I hadn't missed you at all! And I see you are still utilising four/five note patterns on horrible synths with some heavy drums to give it a big beat - oh wait, are you just doing that to drown out Ellie Goulding? If so, Mr Harris, you have my respect. Not much of it, but a tiny amount. A drawing pin's worth of respect, if you will.

However, your songwriting still sucks. Delaying the fourth chord of the world's most obvious chord sequence doesn't make your song original. It just makes it jarring to the ear and makes it sound awful.

Rating: 2/10

Disclosure - White Noise

How long did I last? 0:37

Impressions: It starts off sounding like video game music, which is a positive in my book. Sadly this positive only manages to last slightly longer than the positive charge in an AA battery once you have slotted it into the back of a Sega Game Gear (you see? I can still get retro gaming references into this blog even when it's about music!). And then the vocal starts, which is what killed the song for me. Imagine, if you will the sound you get if you took a squealing weasel, managed to (somehow) insert it into a toothpaste tube and then slowly squeezed the end.

That's what this sounds like. As if someone is slowly squeezing out the words.. well, I say words - I assume there are words but in direct contrast to Ellie Goulding, it seems that this weasel ONLY uses consonants, so it just sounds like some harsh noises.

And the music is so repetitive, dull and immensely frustrating to listen to. It's as if someone thought they'd written a song, that lasted 7 seconds, pressed a button on the keyboard, pressed repeat and left.

I may be doing this song a disservice, as it may pick up and become interesting later on, but I highly doubt it...

Rating: 3/10

Ellie Goulding - Burn

How long did I last: 1:11

Impressions: Why does this begin like some kind of dance track? It's an Ellie Goulding song, shouldn't it be all breathy and dull? Oh wait, here comes the unique vocal stylings of little Miss "I just breathe instead of sing" and the track begins it's sharp descent into horrendousness. Seriously, it sounds like some kind of early 90's dance track - I was expecting some Bonkers-style happy hardcore beats to come in at some point - which, let's face it, would probably have improved it.

And how many times does she feel the urge to say Burn in the chorus? Is this song a secret tutorial for pyromaniacs or something? (There may be a lyrical reason for it - but since I can't understand a damn word she says, I couldn't tell you!)

Rating: 3/10 (It's better than her Calvin Harris one. Just.)

John Newman - Love me Again

How long did I last: 2:59

Impressions: First things first. I don't like his voice. I tried not to let that influence me, as I am notoriously fussy with vocalists, so I tried to listen to the whole orchestration and not focus on it. Then the descending string part (which sounds like it came direct from the seventies) starts, and it reaches the morse code style guitar part. I was reaching out to turn it off, but stopped when the chorus came in. And I realised that although I have heard this - many many many times - it's *takes deep breath* not shit!

Don't get me wrong, this isn't audio perfection by ANY means - I still don't like his voice, and it is remarkably musically predictable (yes I am a musical snob - what are you going to do about it!) but at least it has real instruments (and synth strings) and it bounces along the way that a pop song should do.

So just as I was thinking that this was doing really well, it reaches the middle eight, and sadly, that completely breaks the song for me. It is such a dirge in comparison with everything we've heard before. It's such a shame, because without that I MIGHT have listened to it all the way through.

Rating: 7/10

Naughty Boy - La, La, La

How Long did I last?: 0:20

Impressions: This opens with some kind of ethereal fake harp. That's OK, I can cope with that. But then the vocal (and I use that word so very loosely) comes in. Singing "lalalalalala". And that's where I stopped. Partly because I feel that anyone who sings with la la la la is just lazy, but mostly because the last of the la's in each line has had so much auto tune applied to make it slide up that it just sounds horrendous. You remember how the cheap keyboards you used to play with in music lessons had the pitch bend wheels on the end? Well it's like that, but with a horribly cut and pasted vocal.

This song is not recommended for you. Or for anyone with ears and any kind of musical knowledge. Or rats. (It would be cruel to the rats).

Rating: 2/10

Olly Murs - Dear Darlin'

How long did I last? 1:14

Impressions: So, last year Olly Murs was the big surprise for me. I listened to his song all the way through and enjoyed it. So I was quietly confident when I started this song.

"OK", I thought, "It's a ballad - It starts with just piano and vocals, so let's see what happens next... oh, the second time around the verse has a kick drum under it - not original but works I guess..."

And then, the rest of the song comes in, and in one defining moment I realise what's going on.

Last year, Olly Murs wanted to sound like Maroon 5 - which is fine, as Maroon 5 have long since stopped sounding like Maroon 5.  So for this song, Olly Murs apparently REALLY REALLY wants to sound like Robbie Williams. But not early-era energetic Robbie Williams, oh no. He wants to be overblown middle of the road filled with dullness Robbie Williams. The Robbie Williams everyone tries to forget - with such wonderful hits as "Millenium" and other such bland shite.

This song is just not fun, and that was a big disappointment for me. Olly was a pleasant surprise in last year's blog, but sadly that appears to have been a one off, rather than the norm.

What a shame.

Rating: 4/10

One Direction - One Way or Another (Teenage Kicks)

How long did I last: 0:51

Impressions: Oh dear god. Before I even put this on I was worried about it. Just look at that combination of title(s) and artist. It seems to scream "Hey, remember when music was good? Well FUCK YOU - that will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!".

In fact, I almost listened to zero seconds of it, but I decided that it wouldn't be fair to do that. I promised to try every song on the list. And that includes this one.

So here we go.

...

I guess that after ripping off other songs for their own "original" compositions ("Summer Lovin'" for "You don't Know you're Beautiful", "Baba O'Reilly" for "Best Song Ever", "Should I stay or Should I go" for "Live While We're Young", to name but three) One Direction embracing cover songs is the next logical step, but who thought that this was a good idea?

There are no words to describe the awfulness of this.

Oh, and now the Synth Clap is being used. Personally I think that the use of Synth Clap should be banned, and anyone who uses it should get THE CLAP!

Ugh.

I tried to listen further, as I'm told that there is a "mash up" involving Teenage Kicks later in the song (hence the title), and I wanted to hear how awful that was. However, it is a medical fact that if you listen to more than one minute of this song (and you are over 12 years old), then your brain will explode.

Rating: 1/10

Passenger - Let Her Go

How Long did I last? 2:01

Impressions: Now this is strange, the opening sounds like a real instrument. Not the ethereal synth harps of Naughty Boy, or the vomit-inducing synths of Calvin Harris, or even the HORRENDOUS SYNTH CLAP OF DOOM used by One Direction. This is a real instrument, one that somebody has to learn how to play... that makes a change! Again, like the earlier song by John Newman. I wasn't particularly keen on the vocalist when it started, but I let it keep going - if for no other reason than it was cleansing my brain of the One Direction horrors it had previously suffered.

But yeah, musically it's OK. The chord sequence, while pretty standard, was at least varied enough to not just be a bog-standard four chord sequence, and the orchestration actually sounded quite nice...

Sadly it came down to the vocalist after a little while. John Newman survived because the rest of the song was interesting and energetic - but with this pedestrian plodding song, there's only so much of this vocalist I can take - especially when I can't understand the lyrics because there's a complete lack of diction again!

Rating: 5/10

Rudimental - Waiting All Night

How Long did I last? 0:56

Impressions: What happened to songwriters / musicians / producers? Why can't we just give a vocalist a tune, tell them to sing it, and then record them singing it? Why must we play with auto-tune to make it sound horrible, and why must it be cut and pasted to high heaven? Please, can't someone stop the madness?

Well, if they can, it sure as hell won't be on this song, which suffers from all of those complaints and more. I mean, this isn't music, it's just - noise.

*HYPOCRITE ALARM*

Yes, I know that I like to listen to Slayer. Or Rob Zombie. Or Ginger Wildheart's Mutation albums. And yes, I know that a lot of people would just deem them noise as well. But...

Well...

They are better noise! (And I don't need to justify it any more than that - it's my blog damnit!)

Also that drum beat - the one that sounds like someone has taught a strobe light how to play the drums - aren't we past that now? Surely we don't need to keep making songs that sound like this - do we?

Rating: 3/10

So this is over for another year - and the winner (i.e. the one that is the most not shit) is John Newman! Well done sir, you can continue to make music. Now the rest of you, if you'd just step through this door...

*Ushers the artists out of the door*

*Shuts the door*

*Muffled Shotgun Blast rings out*

*Comes back in alone*

Let's do better next year, eh?

One, Two, Trilogy....

I begin this blog as I have so many others by apologising for the distinct lack of action this page has seen recently. Other things have been going on this year, and my mind has been elsewhere.

That said, I've decided to dip my toe into the world of blogging again, and upon glancing through my blogger account I found a half-written article that I felt I should revive, as it has been on my computer for ages. (Although this article will probably bear remarkably little resemblance to that post as I am writing this one on my notepad on a particularly quiet day at work (Except obviously the version you are reading now has been typed up, so this is the version I have written in the future from my current point of view, but when I type this up the current will be the past, and the typing will be the present, but from your point of view it's in the past@$%Q($£!$$£-----------------------------------TEMPORAL ERROR--------------TIME=-1<45-----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. Trilogies.

(And yes, I know I hadn't mentioned trilogies at any point in the previous paragraph, but trust me, that's where I was heading before I got sidetracked with all the temporal confusion)

Something that annoys me a great deal in life, is the misuse of the word trilogy. Just because there are three films/books/games in a series, does not automatically make it a trilogy. In fact, dictionary.com describes a trilogy as:

"a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc., that,although individually complete, are

closely related in theme,sequence, or the like."

To me, the most important word in that sentence is related. So it's not just a case of them showcasing the same characters (in my opinion). To me, a trilogy should be a trio of stories that come together to tell one over-arching story (And no, this doesn't mean that are not watchable within their own right, simply that the total trilogy is greater than the sum of its parts.)

A quick search of amazon for the word trilogy (narrowed to the Film and TV section for the sake of this blog, as otherwise I start to get lots of make-up in the search...) returns 1,061 results. And an awful lot of these are not really trilogies. The Robocop trilogy, for example, is not a trio of linked films, it is a trio of films that have Robocop in them.

I would like to point out, at this time I am not here to argue the artistic merits of third films in series' (as we know most of them are rubbish) and I will only pick examples of films I have seen to support my argument.

The number one result is Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, which is no surprise since I am writing this the weekend the fourth film opens at the cinema, and that, to me is a proper trilogy. You can watch all three films individually, but for the most satisfying experience, you watch all three of them, and by the end the characters have reached a suitable conclusion. (Plus, Kiera Knightly ends up on an island with a sprog, far away from any future sequels!)

While scrolling down the list, a lot of those that I would consider not real trilogies are older films, from back in the day when you simply sequalised a film by putting the same character(s) in a new situation (Naked Gun, Die Hard, Beverly Hills Cop, Mad Max) or two older films and then a more modern addition to the canon, which simply takes one element of the previous films (Obvious example here is the Predators Trilogy box-set. Which contains Predator (the original), Predator 2 (The shitty sequel, only really noticeable for having an alien skull on board the Predators ship, which began the years of cross-pollination between the franchises) and then Predators (The most recent entry from a couple of years ago, which apart from the titular alien has bugger all to do with the other two))

Am I arguing that artistically, real trilogies are better than fake ones? Not at all - I just wish that there would be some differentiation between the two. And don't get me started on trilogy sets that only exist because they can, even though there are more films in the series.... (There's a box set called the Omen trilogy on here, and I'm pretty sure there's four films in that series (not including the remake)). But it could be worse, at least they don't use the word quadrilogy....

DVDs make me angry...

We've made it to 2011. That's right, a year that I always assumed would only ever exist as a Best Before Date on tinned goods is now here.And do you know what? I even thought about doing a blog about New Years Resolutions, in line with just about everyone on the internet. But then, this evening, I saw something that made me much angrier than stupid New Years resolutions.

Tonight, I watched Sex and the City 2 on DVD. No, that's not the thing that made me angry, as while it's not necessarily my sort of film, I managed to sit through it making a few silly and somewhat rude comments (to see the best of these, look for the hashtag #manvssatc on Twitter). No, what made me angry was after we'd watched the film, my lovely Neety wanted to put the special features on.

I feel I need to clarify this. The action of putting the special features on isn't what made me angry. What made me mildly annoyed firstly, was that the 'Special Features' Disc only has five featurettes on, which made me wonder why they couldn't just put it on the first disc (the answer, of course, being that then they can advertise it as a Two-Disc Special Edition), but again, I ignored this.

And then, the killer moment. When Neety clicked on the second featurette she wanted to watch, an advert for all the other Sex and the City DVDs played before the feature started. Yes, that's right, an advert was glued onto the front of the feature.

That's a step too far for me. I accept that we get trailers and adverts on DVDs when we first put them in (which you can always traditionally skip by pressing the menu button) and I know that these often don't seem to match up very well with the main feature. (Case in point is the SATC2 DVD which has a trailer for Cats and Dogs: The revenge of Kitty Galore on it. Because that will obviously appeal to the same people who'd watch Sex and the City....) And I expect special features for a film to contain clips from other films/shows in the franchise just to remind you of the bits you've forgotten. I even expect to see that incredibly annoying un-skippable anti-piracy advert on the front of the DVD that you have bought legally. (Interestingly, that advert is very rarely on pirated DVDs so I'm told, so doesn't that make the thing pointless in itself?) But to force you to sit through an advert when trying to watch a special feature on a DVD you've paid for? That's just rude.

Take TV for example. Yes, we now have the 'credit squeeze', where the end credits for the program you have just enjoyed are squashed to one side so that the irritating continuity announcer can remind you what is coming up next. But at least that's at the end, so you can ignore it or turn it off. But I take exception to being forced to watch adverts on a DVD I've paid for.

Can you imagine what it'd be like in real life if that was the situation. If whenever you wanted to see, speak to or engage with anyone, they would stop and advertise other things that they thought you might want, based on the opening line of conversation you had fed to them? No-one would stand for it. So why do we stand for it on DVDs?

I don't think we should. I think we should make a stand. I'm going to rise up and speak to producers of DVDs and tell them that this type of direct marketing just isn't cricket. And if that this all continues then I shall not be buying any more DVDs....

.... Oh who am I kidding. I'm not going to boycott anyone. This isn't going to stop me buying DVDs. (It's lack of money and storage space that does that!). In fact the entire result of this rant will simply be that you all read it and judge me for over-recating to the whole situation.

Ah well, ranting is what the internet is for, right?

Accelerating towards Adulthood

So I'm nearly 30.

Yes, that's right dear reader, I know that this information is shocking to you, but I am nearly 30 - the age when I'm supposed to be grown up, and sensible, and stuff.

*laughs*

But seriously, whilst having a conversation with the lady in my life the other day, after I'd made several self deprecating age-related jokes, she asked me the following:

"Are you really worried about turning thirty?"

My answer? "No."

Which is true. I mean, the fact that I am heading into the strange world of middle-age (although according to Wikipedia, I'm either five or ten years away from that yet, but I digress) does make me think about my life, what I've achieved, where I am, where I'm going. But do you know what? I'm happy with it.

But since it is a time for self-reflection and consideration, I'm going to try (the important word here being "try") to write a few blogs about this oncoming milestone.

I've never been one of those people who made a list of "things to do before I'm 30", and, although I certainly had ideas for what I wanted to achieve in the next ten years when I turned 20, these things change. However, people who publish these lists seem to assume that everyone wants to do, or should have done, the things they suggest. As such, they're all pretty vague. So, in the nature of well-balanced journalism and not, you know, just picking something to randomly ridicule (honest), I've discovered that Hallmark is not just a company who produces crap cards and a crap TV channel, but also this crap list as well. Shall we see what I've accomplished, and what I need to do in the next month and a bit?

Attempt to Moonwalk across the dancefloor in a crowded nightclub

I'm not a big fan of nightclubs. Or crowds. So no. I've tried to do it drunkenly in a kitchen if that counts... (it did not go well..)

Dance all night and get home when it's light!

Replace 'Dance' with 'Drink' and I've done it. Many times.

Realise that you still don't know what you want to do when you grow up

Yeah. This is true. I don't know what I want to do when I grow up. But I don't care much about rushing the discovery of it either.

Audition for a reality show, regardless of your ability or reputation

Sadly, I have done this. I sent in an audition tape for Big Brother 2. Sad times. In my defence, I was drunk at the time...

Purchase a ridiculously expensive and totally 'unpractical' pair of shoes - Just because!

Is this list for women? I don't tend to purchase shoes that are either expensive or unpractical. I just have three pairs of shoes. Boots, posh shoes, trainers.

Go to work in your 'night before' clothes at least once

Done it. Many times.

Realise finally that you'll always feel like a 5 year old inside - no-one ever grows up!

I'm not a 5 year old inside. I'm at least 13....

Blag your way into the VIP area!

Define blag.... I've been in many, but traditionally whilst working....

Spend a night in a haunted house, with friends and torches

OK, this is impossible, because ghosts don't exist. So I can't go to a haunted house in the first place. Damn you Hallmark, making up even more crap.

Recreate a scene from a famous film!

I've done this. More than once I'm sure.

Do something your Mum says you'll regret - then not regret it

I've lost count of the number of times I've done this...

Make a spontaneous purchase, something indulgent, expensive and gorgeous for yourself no worries.

Yup. But that could be to do with the fact I'm not great with money.

Invent a 7 day weekend! With continuous Friday Feeling

I'm sorry, this I don't understand. How can I invent a 7 day weekend? Does it mean just spend a week living like every day is a weekend? Well I've done that, it's called a holiday... dumbasses.

Drink a Manhattan cocktail in Manhattan!

Not happened. Not likely to either.

Take part in a midnight marathon

Yes, because if I'm going to run 26 miles at my current fitness level, the best time to do it is in the dark so I can't see where I'm going....

Have the guts to start my own business

I've had the guts many times. The money? That's a different story...

Sing your heart out in a different language. Very liberating!

Done it many times. Prefer singing in English though.

Learn to Salsa!

Have you SEEN me dance?

Zorbing down a steep hill! So much fun...if you’re not sick!

Love to do it. It's expensive though...

Find the perfect little black dress!

OK, nowhere in this list does it say it's for women. Does that mean men are looking for the perfect little black dress as well? Was there a memo no-one gave me?

Sleep under the stars

Why? It's cramped... oh that says STARS. My bad. Yeah, I agree with this, do it. It's peaceful. And fun.

See in the New Year in a foreign city

Why? I like to see in the New Year with people I know and like. I can't afford to take all of them to a foreign city too! I saw the New Year in in Southampton this year, does that count?

Resist everything except temptation

What the FUCK does this even mean??

Wave your Union Jack at the last night of the Proms!

Done it. Well, waved it at the TV anyway

Set a Guinness World Record

I tried to do this once, and set the world record for eating bananas. I failed.

Learning to sing just one karaoke song...well!

I can sing many karaoke songs :) Whether I do them well, that's a question for the audience surely?

Get your kicks on Route 66!

Why would a road give me kicks?

Do the Conga!

Yes, I have been drunk at a party before. Ergo this has been done.

Find something you are really good at and make your mark on the world!

Yeah OK, way to ramp up the expectations here. All the other things have been fairly easy to do, but this? Define 'really good'? Define 'make your mark'? Are you telling me that if by thirty I haven't written a famous symphony, or had a hit single, or cured cancer, or been awarded a nobel prize, then I should give up? Fuck you Hallmark.

Do one thing that actually terrifies you!

Done that. A lot. I don't recommend it. Don't believe the psychiatrists. 90% of the time, if you do something you're terrified of, it'll just make you more terrified!

So to be clear, I've done about half of those. So am I about to rush out and buy a little black dress, some impractical shoes, discover a 7 day weekend, set a World Record and then Moonwalk across a crowded dancefloor?

Surprisingly, no, I'm not.

Alright then Mr Sarcastic Bastard, I hear you all shout, so what advice do you give? What would you say that people should do before they're thirty?

My answer? Whatever makes you happy. Simple. I mean if you look at my list of things I'm proud that I've done in the last nearly-thirty years, there's a wide variety of stuff. Yes there's my creative side, I've written plays, pantomimes, musicals, stories, songs, films and even a novel, and performed on stage as everything from a plant to a woman, but there's the other things too. I've seen my big sister get married, gained some of the best friends a guy could have, and, most notably (and recently), I've moved in with the most gorgeous girl I've ever known.

Middle age? Pah. I'm not even half-way through (hopefully - barring accidents). Bring it on.

POSTSCRIPT - If you want to support Brawny's creative side, then go and see Maverick's production of "The Cursed Treasure of Barbarous Bill" - his latest play, performed with two other one-act plays in St Clement's Hall, Parkstone on 28th-30th October 2010.

Driving me Crazy...

So, after my points I made in my previous blog as far as reasons why I wouldn't be writing blogs more often, I find myself procrastinating with a blog entry. Oh well, such is life.

So, the other day at work, I was browsing the Daily Echo (as it's sold in the canteen, and therefore it's the closest thing to read) and I noticed another in a long line of stories regarding speed cameras and how good/bad they were. There's been a few of them recently, whether it be the announcement that the Wessex Way 40mph limit is continuing, the justification for said announcement after outcry from the common man, the discovery of how much money the Holes Bay camera made in a year, and the question over whether they'll all be shut down.

But I'm not commenting on these as specific stories. Yes, I drive down the Wessex Way to work every day, and yes I wish the speed limit was back to 50 along there (and those of you who read this who are not from Poole/Bournemouth, I'm sorry, you won't have a clue what I'm on about!) but the biggest issue is that it's extremely hard to argue for a raised speed limit.

Because if you argue for a raised speed limit, then you are effectively arguing that it doesn't matter if more people die. Because it can be proved that speed kills. So therefore it's an impossible situation to be in, as shown with the following mathematical equation.

Desire for Higher Speed Limits = CHILD MURDERER!

But do you know what? I don't think that's always true. Let's take the Wessex Way as an example for a moment (and for those of you who don't know it, it's a long, mostly straight dual carriageway, which used to be 50mph all the way along, and now one section of it is 40mph). It's got some short slip roads leading onto it, and therefore I don't think it should be over 50, but other than that there's no pedestrians and therefore I don't see the reasoning for the 40mph limit.

Currently the justification (as listed in one of the articles I linked earlier) states that "between 2004 and 2008, there were an average of 2.4 accidents and 3.3 casualties a month. But between February and May this year, this reduced to an average of 1.5 accidents and 2 casualties – a drop of 37.5 per cent and 39.4 per cent respectively. "

Yes, that looks like an awful lot in the percentage statistics, but in real life that's a drop of 0.9 accidents per month. That's less than one. And that's ignoring the most important issue here, which is that you cannot compare an average gained over four years (which includes time before the alterations were made to the laning etc near the Frizzel end) to an average gained over 3 months. One wonders why they didn't compare a specific February to May section of their statistics to the ones they have gathered. And I suspect that it's because they would have shown bugger all difference.

But enough of that, I know what you're all after. So here it is. Brawny's sarcastic-yet-vaguely-sensible suggestions for how to overhaul our roads.

1) Increase the national speed limit.

Increase it to 100mph. The national limit of 70mph was established in 1965. There weren't many road cars that could drive faster than that in 1965! Everyone speeds on Motorways anyway - and while I don't know the statistics for them (mainly because I can't find them) I wouldn't imagine the fatality rates for driving at 100mph in modern vehicles are much worse than driving at 70.

2) Motorcycle lanes.

I would say this, because I'm a motorcyclist. But it'd be really handy.

3) Strict limits in built up/urban areas.

As much as it pains me to say it (and I hate driving at 20mph as much as the next motorist) but built up and urban areas are higher risk when it comes to driving, due to those irritating-but-not-going-anywhere-soon pedestrians. So keep strict limits. Cameras by schools etc is fine, and indeed I can see as a very good idea.

4) Have a long look at all roads to evaluate speed limits.

This is where all the Wessex Way moaning from earlier fits in. Just look at roads with a sensible eye to gauge the speed it should be. And don't let panicking over-reactionaries make you slow it down.

5) Stop assuming all drivers want to speed.

I hate this assumption. It happens even more with me, since I'm a motorcyclist, have long hair and am still (relatively) young. (Yes, I know I'm turning 30 this year, but I'm still young. Dammit.) People therefore assume I want to ride everywhere at 120mph. Not true. I just want to feel like I'm getting somewhere in the manner that combines the quickest with the safest. And most of the time that works. If we raised the national speed limit and re-evaluated speeds on all the roads, then maybe we'd all get where we are going as quickly and safely as possible.

Oh and I almost forgot...

6) Ban BMW drivers. You know it makes sense.

So what do you think? How would you improve our roads? Send an e-mail to whothehellcares@pointlessdiscussion.com.

The News on Friday

In a bit of light Friday banter (and get me, I'm writing a blog on a Friday, that almost never happens!) I saw a couple of news stories earlier that I felt were just dying to be written about....

First up - Russian abducted by Aliens? MP demands investigation....

Is it just me, or does this feel like the beginning of a science fiction blockbuster? Eccentric man (who happens to be a local Russian president, the leader of the southern region of Kalmykia) claims in TV interview to have been abducted by aliens. MP demands investigation...

If it was a blockbuster film then the story would progress as follows. The local president would be questioned, just as the aliens invade, and the MP would lead the people in fighting them off. (Also, if it was a blockbuster film, it wouldn't be set in Russia...)

But what's great about this is that it's real, and the MP has some very real concerns.

"MP Andre Lebedev is not just asking whether Mr Ilyumzhinov is fit to govern. He is also concerned that, if he was abducted, he may have revealed details about his job and state secrets...(he) asks if there are official guidelines for what government officials should do if contacted by aliens, especially if those officials have access to state secrets."

Yeah, because aliens are interested in Russia's state secrets, obviously. You'd understand his point if it was a very sensible person claiming to have been abducted, but let's look at Mr Ilyumzhinov's credentials...

"He has been president of Kalmykia, a small Buddhist region of Russia which lies on the shores of the Caspian Sea, for 17 years. The millionaire former businessman has a reputation as an eccentric character. As president of the World Chess Federation, he has spent tens of millions of dollars turning the impoverished republic into a mecca for chess players - building an entire village to host international tournaments. "

So basically, he's the president of Chessville, Russia??? I'm fairly sure that, what with him being a weirdo to start with, the aliens probably didn't exist...

Or they have some mechanism to only target people that the rest of the world won't believe, and they are right now monitoring the internet, reading this blog, and smiling because they know their secret remains safe....

OK. I'm not gonna believe it, unless the aliens invade, in which case I'm heading for Chessvile, anyone else coming? You're all invited. Except this guy.

Yes, this is Brawny's second crazy news story of the day (did you like my exceedingly unsubtle link between the two? It's the best I could do, I'm tired...) and I can't possibly describe it in a funnier way than the opening two paragraphs of the Sun article, so I'm just going to paste that here :

"Greying Peter Trigger, 60, was given a five year ASBO in December 2008 after loitering outside a primary school wearing a Britney Spears-style outfit of grey skirt, white blouse, burgundy tie, grey ankle socks and a blue cap.

He is banned from wearing a skirt or showing bare legs on a school day between 8.30am and 10am and 2.45pm and 4pm. "

That's right. A 60 year old man is banned from wearing a skirt or showing his bare legs on a schoolday. I'm not sure what else I need to write here to make it funny. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need a lot of comments from me...although, what with it being the Sun, and the article being about him breaching the ASBO, shouldn't the headline have been "Oops, he did it again!"?

Except he didn't do it again. The article itself says "He paraded in front of Mary and Philip Copping, who live opposite, while wearing a mini-skirt before repeatedly bending over in front them with his back turned. "

*Shudders* Ignore that mental image and read the next sentence...

"The couple were getting into Mr Copping's van to go to work at 7.25am when he approached, the court was told. "

7.25am. That's before 8.30am. Therefore surely he's not in breach of his ASBO? Especially since it was initially put into place due to him freaking out schoolchildren, hence the timings and schoolday specifications. When it was initially imposed "Northampton Borough Council said he was entitled to wear whatever he wanted, but not if it caused "alarm or distress" to the public."

So we're allowed to express ourselves freely, as long as we don't alarm or distress people? Is it just me, or are our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression slowly being whittled away, made so that we can do whatever we want as long as it is determined to be "normal"?

Serious thoughts there, from a ridiculous story, but they lead to this third and much more serious story that genuinely splits my opinion, as it's a case of my personal principles and dislikes clashing.

This is the story of Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, who was arrested for saying that homosexuality was a sin in a public place. (I realise that sentence is unclear, I mean he said it in a public place, not that he was saying homosexuality is only a sin in public...) And this is where my conflicting opinions come into play.

On the one hand, I think it's disgraceful in this day and age that people should believe that any form of sexuality is wrong.

However, I also don't agree with the arresting of someone for expressing an opinion.

I believe in free speech and tolerance for all religious and personal beliefs, no matter how stupid or idiotic I personally think they are. And as the article itself says "The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God. "

That to me sounds like a private conversation between two people. Did the passing shopper feel harassed? Did Mr McAlpine yell the information? Well.. not really.

"Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.(..) Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith. During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van. "

My biggest problem with this is that, if he said it loudly enough to be charged under the Public Order act then why on earth didn't the PCSO attempt to arrest him before his sermon, or prevent him from giving the sermon whilst waiting for backup? It does seem that the PCSO may have pushed harder for the man to be arrested, due to his own sexuality.

Which I can understand. If I was a policeman and someone told me that it was a sin to be fat (That's not anyone's religious belief as far as I know, but just an example that could apply to me) then I'd be annoyed and I'd take it personally. But I'd like to think I wouldn't abuse my powers to then arrest the offending man.

Now if, in his sermon, he'd started preaching about how we should kill all the gays, then they'd have a point. But he didn't.

In conclusion, I think I'd much rather that we had complete freedom of speech, and we have to occasionally listen to religious nutjobs, than allowing the Police to arrest us over quietly discussing our opinions.

That's all for now. Brawny signing off.

Election Fever and how to cure it.

So, the day is upon us. It's election day. Everyone rejoice!

*Listens to the complete lack of rejoicing*

That's right people, it's election day. And, for the first time in, oh maybe ten years or so, I am actually voting. But this blog isn't about me, it's about two other types of people.

Type 1: The self-righteous Voter

This is the person who goes to vote before badgering you, asking who you're voting for, why, when you're going to do it, and using that immortal phrase (which belongs in the pantheon of "Phrases Brawny hates") "If you don't vote, then you can't complain about the state of the country". Bollocks. Yes you can. You can complain as much as you like.

Now the obvious enemy of the Self-Righteous voter is this man (or woman - I'm not sexist)

Type 2: The Apathetic Non-Voter

This is the person who won't go and vote, usually for one of the following reasons:
I don't know enough about it
I've read the manifesto's and it doesn't make a difference
It's just going to be as bad whoever gets in.

Now most of you, I expect, are waiting for me to start complaining about this person. But I won't. Because I was one of them (and still am partially, I'm voting this time because there are specific things I would like to happen, but if there weren't I'd still be this guy). And let me tell you why. It's not because I'm lazy (although I can be), it's because I genuinely don't believe most things would be solved in a change of government. I use the following as my reasoning:

1) Every party lies during campaigns - they therefore won't enact at least 50% of their policies even if they get elected
2) There are things outside the control of politicians and the government - the financial situation we are currently in would, for example, have happened under any government, because until it happened we wouldn't have prevented it!

The next most common thing I used to hear was "Well why not go and spoil your ballot in protest?". Because it's not really a protest. I admire the gesture but the problem is (and I'm going to simplify slightly here) the results we see of voting ballots reported in the news will be as follows:

Labour - a%
Conservative - b%
Liberal Democrats - c%
Others - d%
Spoilt papers - e%

The problem is that no-one knows how many of those papers were spoilt out of protest, as opposed to the ones that are spoilt because stupid people don't understand how to draw an X.

If there was an option for "None of the above" on the ballot paper, then I would have voted every time I had the chance in the eleven years I've been eligible. But there isn't.

So this blog is a message of solidarity to those people who are not voting today (Unless you're a voter who's too lazy to get out of bed. Then you're just lazy.) Vote if you want to. Vote if there's a reason to. But if you genuinely don't believe you know enough or don't want any of the parties to get in, then why bother going down and scribbling on your paper? Is it worth it? Find a different way to make your statement...

And don't let those pushy voting bastards tell you "You're not allowed to complain." Complain all you damn well want.

P.S. At work there is a mock election going on today, and students have been representing the parties. They were all supposed to come to me to record announcements for each individual party, and I found the results kind of mirrored certain stereotypes of the parties:

The Lib Dems - The delegated representative turned up on time, was very polite, and recorded a nice little message directly relating to their policies. Unfortunately it was delivered in a dull, monotonic fashion, and no-one would have listened to it.

Labour - Four of them turned up half an hour late, argued over what the recording should sound like and then recorded something that was all style and no substance.

Conservative - Just didn't bother to turn up.

I'm not passing judgement, but I did find it funny - especially when the eventual decision was made that the announcements would not be going out on the tannoy, therefore allowing the Conservatives to have gone home early the day we recorded and still not lost any ground....

P.P.S. If anyone can figure out what my title is a reference to, they get a brownie point. (Which isn't a sharpened 8 year old girl...)

Brawny (almost) gets political!

I'm not the most political person in the world. I'm not the least political either, but I'm certainly much closer to that end of the scale. I have a general sense of apathy about politics, which I have noticed has been spreading across the country these last few years.

Until now.

Because now, shock horror, we got to see the leaders of the three main parties talking. About their policies. On TV. And suddenly, everyone cares.

Which is probably good, since whoever we pick is going to run the country....

But anyway - the upshot of the leader debates (certainly the first one) appears to be that all of a sudden people have remembered that the Liberal Democrats exist - which is all good, as personally I agree with more of what they say than the other two (plus they are unsullied by the "They promise a lot now, but look at what happens when they get into power" mentality as they've never got into power...). This has, however led to confusion in the tabloid press (all of whom had backed either Conservative or Labour to the hilt) and in their confusion, the majority of them are thrashing out against Nick Clegg... but this is the best one.

Yes, once again, we're going to talk about a ridiculous Daily Mail article! Let me hear you say yeah! (Listens expectantly. Surprisingly hears a yeah. Decides I'm going insane. Debates calling a doctor. Decides against it. Carries on.)

Yes, it's the article that reckons Nick Clegg is a Nazi (although on reading it today, they've updated it to add a quote from him at the top basically ridiculing their story.) and that he has been involved in lots of unsavoury goings on and is generally the wrong man for the job.

Shall we have a look at the specifics of the article? (Hears that voice again, this time saying "Yes Brawny, let's!" Books a doctors appointment while typing.)

"The passionately pro-Europe Mr Clegg revealed his views on World War II in an article for the Guardian newspaper in 2002. ‘Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche,’ Mr Clegg wrote, before attacking Britain’s approach to the war. ‘All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still...A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. We need to be put back in our place.’"

Now, this seems a little strange as a quote, until you read the entire guardian article which is well-written, well-argued and showcases a lot of very good points (in my opinion). However, if you're offended by reading the complete article, then fine. Surely the Mail would get someone like that to respond to it? Well they went one better, didn't they, they got the grandson of Winston Churchill! Minor detail is? Well, I'll let you read the excerpt and realise what might colour his opinion slightly...

"Tory MP Nicholas Soames, grandson of wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, said: ‘These views will disgust people the length and breadth of the country. They show that Nick Clegg is unfit to lead his party, let alone the country."

Yes he's a Tory MP. So basically the Tories are against Nick Clegg? What a shocker! What's more disturbing though, is what appears to be a throwaway line in the article that says "Ironically, his mother was interned by the Japanese during the war."

Is it just me, or does that line basically say "Mr Clegg, how dare you be all Nazi-like and stuff when your mum was held prisoner by people who weren't the Nazis but were sort of like them during the same war we fought the Nazis in?"

Balanced journalism my arse.

As well as the Nazi accusation, the other accusations made in the article include that he is facing "damaging questions" over money being paid directly to him (which, if you look at the information, was properly declared and used to pay for a member of staff), that he will face tough questions over his pro-Europe stance (but doesn't specify anything more) and that he performed a U-turn, "suggesting he would not ask for him (Gordon Brown) to quit as the price for Lib Dem support in a coalition. Only yesterday he called Mr Brown a 'desperate man' who should not be allowed to stay as a 'squatter' in Downing Street but today he indicated voting reform was more important. 'His record shows he is very much part of the problem, not the solution. But it is not my job to decide who every party has as their leader,' he told the Independent."

I'm fairly sure it can't be considered a U-turn if he didn't say that he wouldn't consider a coalition with Brown. Which he didn't. He apparently "indicated" it. Which intrigues me. Does he have little flashing indicator lights that, instead of showing when he's turning left or right actually tell you what he's thinking?

No. He doesn't. For he is not Nick Clegg; half-man half-bizarre machine, he is Nick Clegg; The man who seems sane in comparison with the other two.

Can the Lib Dems win? I don't know. As I said at the start of this, I don't know much about politics. If they do win will they abandon the majority of their promises? Probably, they're politicians. But you have to wonder - surely they'd be better than the other two idiots?

Death is not the end...

OK, after writing about Michael Jackson's ridiculous posthumous record deal a few weeks ago, I've seen two more stories about posthumously adding to peoples legacies, and they are both as dumb as each other.

First is this, a sequel to Treasure Island. Now, I don't see a point in writing such a sequel, but I'm not going to complain about that - each to their own. However, I'm astonished to see that a sequel written by "the former Poet Laureate Sir Andrew Motion" has apparently resorted to a plotline that sounds like it would have been used in a Disney direct-to-DVD sequel for a classic film (and we can all agree that they're rubbish can't we? I mean, obviously, except the Aladdin ones... :P )

"In Return to Treasure Island, Jim Hawkins lives with his son, Jim Junior, in a pub on the Thames outside London. Jim Junior is visited by a woman who turns out to be Long John Silver's daughter. She convinces Jim Junior to steal the original map of Treasure Island from his father and go on a trip organised by Silver so they can find the rest of the treasure."

OK. Firstly, Return to Treasure Island? I know it's hard thinking of titles for things, but really? Not only is that an amazingly obvious title, but that title has already been used by several sequels (as proved by this search page on Amazon). Why wouldn't a man with such a prestigious background come up with a title that hasn't been used before in that franchise?

Secondly - not only is he going with the whole "children of the old main characters decide to almost exactly replay the plot of the original novel" trope, but he hasn't even bothered to come up with a decent name for Jim Hawkins' son, instead calling him Jim Junior! Seriously, this is majorly lazy. Anyone would think he was dashing this novel off quickly to earn a bit of money... except it's not even likely he'll make a great deal, judging from the lack of success of most posthumous sequels (the exception being, of course, the Bond books).

Did he really think that this was a story worth writing? A story he was invested in? Or was he just offered a big advance cheque?

"Dan Franklin, publisher at Jonathan Cape, said Motion's sequel was a work of "literary ventriloquism"."

Well if he's managing to write it as R.L. Stevenson would have done, and he's basically re-hashing the original's plot (except, I am sure, for adding a romance subplot where love blossoms between those two main characters (and no, I don't have inside information, I'm just guessing)) then surely it'd be a more rewarding experience for all concerned to just READ THE ORIGINAL AGAIN!

And then, yesterday, I saw this. Now, I do believe Kubrick was a master film-maker, and having only seen a couple of his films, there are many of them on my mental "list of films I really ought to watch sometime." However, to claim that this is Kubrick's lost film is, frankly, MENTAL.

Look at the story - "It was a few years' back now that Stanley Kubrick's son-in-law, Philip Hobbs, discovered the work for a film called Lunatic At Large in amongst the masses of paperwork the director left behind after his death. Hobbs told the New York Times in 2006 that his father-in-law was "always saying he wished he knew where it was, because it was such a great idea". It wasn't so much a screenplay, to be fair, that Hobbs put his hands on, rather a treatment that was written by Jim Thompson. Kubrick had commissioned that treatment in the late 1950s."

OK. So Kubrick commissioned the treatment. So he didn't write it. (He may have had the original idea for the film, it's hard to tell from the limited information in the news story). And he obviously won't direct it, seeing as he's dead! And since Kubrick was a writer/director/editor/producer then he will have done NONE of these jobs on the film - so how is it his film??

I mean, don't get me wrong - even A.I. (which incidentally is a much better film if you stop it as the robot boy (who's name I forget) drowns, and you ignore all the alien stuff at the end) was at least assembled from "the various drafts and notes left by Kubrick and his writers " (And yes, I did just quote the Wikipedia Stanley Kubrick page - I know Wikipedia is often not a reliable source, but I remember seeing this elsewhere at the time), so I can see why it was thought of as an unmade Kubrick film - but surely just commissioning this treatment for Lunatic at Large doesn't make it his lost film??

Look, if I were ever to be famous and to die leaving lots of half-written things on my computer (which would be likely, as my computer is ALWAYS full of half-written things), then any of those being developed could be credited as a lost Michael Braunton film - but if it was based on me asking someone to write a plot for an idea I'd had - then it wouldn't belong to me - it belongs to the writer...

What's worse is I have a horrible suspicion this "lost Kubrick film" will end up with a generic director and be average - thus tarnishing Kubrick's record (which both A.I. and Eyes Wide Shut have already done to an extent...), whereas at least with this Treasure Island sequel, the only name to be tarnished will be that of the author, because no-ones claiming it's based on an idea R.L. Stevenson had.. thankfully.

What do you think? Are there any posthumous films/books/albums that you think add to the artist's legacy rather than tarnish it?

Laying down the Digital Law

Remember how a couple of months ago I posted a helpful blog for how the entertainment industry should fix itself? Well it turns out that instead of listening to the helpful advice of an anonymous Internet blogger, the government went the other way.

Today, the digital economy bill passed the house of commons. This is, in my opinion, very much a double-edged sword. Yes, I'm all for legislation to ensure that copyright is kept and rights holders are paid a fair wage. But this isn't it.

This bill is (and let's be clear about this, I haven't read the thing, just several concise summaries) frankly badly-thought out and behind the times. And full of vague language.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised it passed, and I'm not surprised it's opponents are saying it was rushed through before the election. Of course it was, because it's a politically poisoned chalice. No-one knows how properly to fix the situation, and no-one really wants to appear for or against it in an election campaign.

The trouble is, that assuming this thing passes the house of Lords and comes into law (and I expect it will) then it's very open to interpretation.

"Under the terms of the bill, Internet service providers will be obliged to send letters to any of their subscribers linked to alleged infringements." Well firstly, I'm unsure as to the technical definition of "linked", but more than that, it means that you will be notified even if someone else has been using your connection - be it family, friend, flatmate, or person outside who's hacked into your wi-fi.

"Restrictions on the activities of persistent copyright offenders will not come into force for a year and only on the basis of clear evidence of their activities." What, exactly, constitutes clear evidence?

There is some good news - "A clause on "orphan works" - material where the author was impossible to identify - was also dropped after opposition from photographers."- this clause was horrendous, basically meaning that people could claim they'd found pictures etc, and couldn't find the owner, so they'd be allowed to use it for free.

"Another proposal allowing politicians to block pirate websites without primary legislation was replaced with an amendment which lets ministers "make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction"."

OK, I'm a pretty well-educated guy, and to me that sentence is a) full of jargon and b) basically means the same thing, but they do have to speak to a court first.

Look, I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about this stuff, but on reading this, I think I may have to be. Don't get me wrong, I know I break the law by downloading certain things, but I would like to think that I only do it when I don't have much of an option left. I can't watch Lost legally because my landlord won't let me install Sky. If I could, I would do. I can watch Chuck legally, but as far as I know, the UK's about a year behind, and without downloading facilities, I would never have discovered The Middleman, which is so good I imported the DVD set, and want to import the graphic novel.

I just... this feels wrong. It feels like all the rules set out in the bill are so horrendously unspecific that it could be moulded into whatever people want it to be. And I'm guessing that there are more Internet-phobic members of parliament than Internet-friendly ones. So it may end up becoming a horrific piece of legislation.

It may work. And I hope it does. But I am, for now, very sceptical.