For the last couple of days I've had Delirious' first two albums playing in the car, namely Cutting Edge 1&2 and Cutting Edge 3&4. These are the albums I know least well of all Delirious' music, because they were released before I was aware of the band's existence, in 1994-1995.
Over the last couple of days, I've realised how strong the links are between these two albums and the early work of Matt Redman, who appeared at about the same time and who has co-written several songs with Delirious front man Martin Smith. I'm particularly talking about the music itself, rather than the lyrics - things like epic synths, piano usage, even the sound of the vocals.
Thinking of Matt's first three albums (Wake up my Soul, Passion for your Name and The Friendship and the Fear), the strongest parallels were with the following Delirious songs:
The Message of the Cross
Singer's Song
The Crucible for Silver
Prophet Song
Lead Me
Did you Feel the Mountains Tremble?
Oh Lead Me
You Split the Earth
I've Searched for Gold
I like it that one of my favourite bands and one of my favourite solo artists remind me of each other in this way.
In other news, I've just found out that Delirious are to release a live album later this year. I'm not particularly excited about this, as it won't contain any new material, and because the number of Delirious live albums is getting silly (this will be the 6th). However, I am excited about hearing live versions of God is Smiling, Hallelujah, and Love will find a way.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Hermeneutics
Not original to me, but nonetheless brilliant...
Suppose you're traveling on the road and you see a stop sign. What should I do? (I hear you ask). That depends on how you exegete the stop sign...
1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: a) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; b) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. A scholar from a Jesuit seminary concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
8. A New Testament scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
9. An Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".
10. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
11. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
12. A "Word of Faith" preacher reads the sign and explains that we are redeemed from the curse of the law; therefore we are not bound from such negative laws. He further expounds that to repeat the word printed on the sign is to make a bad confession. Gives advice that it is best to interpret the sign as a "GO". (Does so and is unfortunately hit by the Mac truck of reality coming in the opposite direction.)
Suppose you're traveling on the road and you see a stop sign. What should I do? (I hear you ask). That depends on how you exegete the stop sign...
1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: a) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; b) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. A scholar from a Jesuit seminary concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
8. A New Testament scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
9. An Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".
10. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
11. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
12. A "Word of Faith" preacher reads the sign and explains that we are redeemed from the curse of the law; therefore we are not bound from such negative laws. He further expounds that to repeat the word printed on the sign is to make a bad confession. Gives advice that it is best to interpret the sign as a "GO". (Does so and is unfortunately hit by the Mac truck of reality coming in the opposite direction.)
My music collection in 15 songs
I tried to represent my music taste with just ten songs. I couldn’t do it. So here are fifteen songs that, together, represent my music taste. And no, it’s not significant that Idlewild are the only one of my elite circle of bands not to feature.
Anberlin – Fin: represents my love of epicness
British Sea Power – True Adventures: represents my occasional love of wierdness
Coldplay – Clocks: represents my completely mainstream side
DC Talk – What Have We Become?: represents my love of intense lyrics
Delirious – Deeper: because it’s such an iconic example of Christian rock
Enya – Wild Child: to show that I love Celtic music
Kato – Natural High: to show the diversity of my Christian music collection
Lifehouse – Hanging By A Moment: because I can handle a small amount of cheese within a brilliant song
Matt Redman – Bowing Down: for all the alternative, less well known worship music
Mew: Am I Wry? No: to represent my love of Scandanavian music, and in particular, vocalists
Oasis – Stand By Me: because I discovered music during the 90s
Strangeday – Fogpilot: an example of one band I love that no-one has heard of
Stellastarr – Sweet Troubled Soul: because I like songs that just have a great tune
Tim Hughes – Beautiful One: for the mainstream worship music
U2 – Tomorrow: because I like some older stuff as well
Anberlin – Fin: represents my love of epicness
British Sea Power – True Adventures: represents my occasional love of wierdness
Coldplay – Clocks: represents my completely mainstream side
DC Talk – What Have We Become?: represents my love of intense lyrics
Delirious – Deeper: because it’s such an iconic example of Christian rock
Enya – Wild Child: to show that I love Celtic music
Kato – Natural High: to show the diversity of my Christian music collection
Lifehouse – Hanging By A Moment: because I can handle a small amount of cheese within a brilliant song
Matt Redman – Bowing Down: for all the alternative, less well known worship music
Mew: Am I Wry? No: to represent my love of Scandanavian music, and in particular, vocalists
Oasis – Stand By Me: because I discovered music during the 90s
Strangeday – Fogpilot: an example of one band I love that no-one has heard of
Stellastarr – Sweet Troubled Soul: because I like songs that just have a great tune
Tim Hughes – Beautiful One: for the mainstream worship music
U2 – Tomorrow: because I like some older stuff as well
Church of the X-Men
I just finished watching the X-men trilogy, one of my half term’s activities. I’ve seen the first two films many times before, but X3 only once, at the cinema. My initial thoughts about film 3 were that it was weaker than the first two – a weaker script and poorly constructed plot. Now I don’t think it’s so bad. Storm has a couple of cheesy lines, Vinnie Jones should be banned from acting, and the plot is to rushed and short. But other than that, it’s a good film. The action is superb, the tone is exciting and tense, and the characters all perform as before.
Overall, I love the trilogy. I don’t generally like superhero films (Batman Begins and Dark Knight the main exceptions), but X-Men seems very different. It’s less cheesy than most superhero films, and certainly the second film has a much more interesting plot. Also, the X-men films don’t focus on one main character – they have several (Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, Magneto, Rogue, Jean, Pyro, Iceman etc) – this makes everything more interesting because as well as the story and fights, you get a lot of character interaction and background. I love how the X-men operate as a team as well, using their various powers in combination.
It’s a bit like the church. The ‘body of Christ’ and all that. Each person using their powers to help the others, and everyone depending on everyone else, covering each others backs. But, just like the church, in parts of the trilogy the mutants work against each other and hinder each other. What a bunch of idiots.
I’m not going any deeper than that at the moment. Just thought it was an interesting parallel.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Beauty
This blog is rambling and may be incoherent. I am sorry for this, my head is addled at the moment. I hope that at least some of it makes sense.
Why are some people considered more attractive or beautiful than others?
Different people find different people attractive. There is no-one who is considered universally attractive. Even the looks of Keira Knightley, recently voted at number 10 in FHM’s 100 sexiest women poll, disgust a good friend of mine. And she’s (apparently) in the top 10 most attractive women in the world!
This suggests to me that the idea of the eye of the beholder is correct. A person’s beauty isn’t their own quality, but is defined by the observer. Therefore some people will find person A attractive and some people will find person B attractive. Another friend of mine has a theory that this is true for most people but that there are about 5% of people at either end who are either universally attractive or universally unattractive, with the 90% in the middle being ‘eye of the beholder attractive’. An interesting theory, and one that I gave some thought to, but I don’t think I agree with. I don’t believe in the 5 % on either end.
I do not think that beauty (or attractiveness or whatever) is something that can be measured, so it cannot be said that one person is more or less attractive than another. However, I do think that there are people who are considered attractive by the majority of observers. These may be the ones who feature in FHM polls and the like – they are not necessarily any more attractive than other people, but a larger proportion of observers consider them attractive. The key scale is not a scale of inherent beauty, but a percentage of observers who see beauty.
Having said that, there clearly is a scale of attractiveness, because observers do not categorise people into ‘attractive’ and ‘unnattractive’. I might find person A more attractive than person B (that’s the eye of the beholder effect), and the general population, as a percentage, may either agree or disagree.
This can be shown as a graph:
Person A is someone that is considered attractive by 100% of the population, but an individual person (on the x-axis) does not find attractive. I call this the Knightley effect.
Person B is not attractive according to either the population or a specific individual, although of course another individual may find them attractive.
Person C is in the classic eye-of-the-beholder situation – they are very attractive according to an individual, but not at all attractive according to the general population.
Person D is very attractive according to the individual, and 100% of the population also consider them attractive.
Make sense so far? To summarise, people who top FHM polls are not necessarily inherently any more attractive than other people (if such a thing could be measured). Rather, more of the population find them attractive than find other people attractive.
But it’s more complicated than that because, of course, the ‘population’ is made up of individuals, each of whom has their own eye-of-the-beholder preferences. So it seems that the eyes of many beholders are pleased by Keira Knightley. So is that really because she actually does have more inherent beauty than most people, but a minority of observers don’t see it? Well, is beauty a matter of opinion? If it is, then Keira cannot be inherently any more beautiful than Miss Average, it’s just that many people find her attractive (could this be culturally conditioned?). If beauty is not a matter of opinion, then, according to FHM, Keira really is more beautiful than most people.
The possibles situations:
1. Beauty is a matter of fact, that could potentially be measured. Some people are just more beautiful than others. Some (clearly misguided) individuals may disagree, but these people are the ones who tend to top FHM polls.
2. Beauty is a matter of opinion, found in the eye of the beholder. FHM polls only occur because a majority of beholders find people like Keira attractive (though we have yet to fully explore why this might be).
3. Some people (about 5% on either end) are inherently attractive or unattractive, and the other 90% are beautiful to the eyes of some beholders.
I am firmly set on option 2, though at this point I can’t quite explain why. As for why so many people consider one person attractive, as hinted above, I think our culture and the media play a big role. We are obviously fed images and ideals of what beauty is or should be (the Knightley look), but this is different to other times in history when a different look would have been considered beautiful. If the culture changed so that another look was defined as beautiful, I expect that Keira would no longer be in the FHM top 10.
That’s about all I have to say at the moment, but if I think of anything more I’ll add it in.
The moral of the story – I am beautiful. If you can’t see it, you must be blind.
Why are some people considered more attractive or beautiful than others?
Different people find different people attractive. There is no-one who is considered universally attractive. Even the looks of Keira Knightley, recently voted at number 10 in FHM’s 100 sexiest women poll, disgust a good friend of mine. And she’s (apparently) in the top 10 most attractive women in the world!This suggests to me that the idea of the eye of the beholder is correct. A person’s beauty isn’t their own quality, but is defined by the observer. Therefore some people will find person A attractive and some people will find person B attractive. Another friend of mine has a theory that this is true for most people but that there are about 5% of people at either end who are either universally attractive or universally unattractive, with the 90% in the middle being ‘eye of the beholder attractive’. An interesting theory, and one that I gave some thought to, but I don’t think I agree with. I don’t believe in the 5 % on either end.
I do not think that beauty (or attractiveness or whatever) is something that can be measured, so it cannot be said that one person is more or less attractive than another. However, I do think that there are people who are considered attractive by the majority of observers. These may be the ones who feature in FHM polls and the like – they are not necessarily any more attractive than other people, but a larger proportion of observers consider them attractive. The key scale is not a scale of inherent beauty, but a percentage of observers who see beauty.
Having said that, there clearly is a scale of attractiveness, because observers do not categorise people into ‘attractive’ and ‘unnattractive’. I might find person A more attractive than person B (that’s the eye of the beholder effect), and the general population, as a percentage, may either agree or disagree.
This can be shown as a graph:
Person A is someone that is considered attractive by 100% of the population, but an individual person (on the x-axis) does not find attractive. I call this the Knightley effect.
Person B is not attractive according to either the population or a specific individual, although of course another individual may find them attractive.
Person C is in the classic eye-of-the-beholder situation – they are very attractive according to an individual, but not at all attractive according to the general population.
Person D is very attractive according to the individual, and 100% of the population also consider them attractive.
Make sense so far? To summarise, people who top FHM polls are not necessarily inherently any more attractive than other people (if such a thing could be measured). Rather, more of the population find them attractive than find other people attractive.
But it’s more complicated than that because, of course, the ‘population’ is made up of individuals, each of whom has their own eye-of-the-beholder preferences. So it seems that the eyes of many beholders are pleased by Keira Knightley. So is that really because she actually does have more inherent beauty than most people, but a minority of observers don’t see it? Well, is beauty a matter of opinion? If it is, then Keira cannot be inherently any more beautiful than Miss Average, it’s just that many people find her attractive (could this be culturally conditioned?). If beauty is not a matter of opinion, then, according to FHM, Keira really is more beautiful than most people.
The possibles situations:
1. Beauty is a matter of fact, that could potentially be measured. Some people are just more beautiful than others. Some (clearly misguided) individuals may disagree, but these people are the ones who tend to top FHM polls.
2. Beauty is a matter of opinion, found in the eye of the beholder. FHM polls only occur because a majority of beholders find people like Keira attractive (though we have yet to fully explore why this might be).
3. Some people (about 5% on either end) are inherently attractive or unattractive, and the other 90% are beautiful to the eyes of some beholders.
I am firmly set on option 2, though at this point I can’t quite explain why. As for why so many people consider one person attractive, as hinted above, I think our culture and the media play a big role. We are obviously fed images and ideals of what beauty is or should be (the Knightley look), but this is different to other times in history when a different look would have been considered beautiful. If the culture changed so that another look was defined as beautiful, I expect that Keira would no longer be in the FHM top 10.
That’s about all I have to say at the moment, but if I think of anything more I’ll add it in.
The moral of the story – I am beautiful. If you can’t see it, you must be blind.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire
I saw the trailer for this film in December and thought ‘Meh. Looks like a bit of a laugh. Wouldn’t pay to see it though’.
Then I was informed twice in the same day that it was (and I quote) ‘amazing’ and ‘phenomenal’. So when I had the chance to see it last night, I went along.
Was it any good? Yes. Was it amazing/phenomenal? No.
Strengths
Firstly, it was a very enjoyable watch – exciting, gripping, funny at times. A good cinematic experience.
The juxtaposition of the familiar Millionaire show with the unfamiliar setting of Indian shanty towns was very clever and worked well without seeming incongruous.
Technically the film was very good – the scenery was excellent, as was the acting.
Weaknesses
The general idea was to show the life story of one boy, mostly in flashback. Think Forrest Gump in India. But what made Forrest Gump so good was the character of Gump, particularly his special needs. Jamal, in Slumdog, just isn’t very interesting.
The plot hangs on Jamal’s feelings for his childhood friend Latika. Some people will dispute this, but remember that he spends his whole life searching for her, he goes on Millionaire because he thinks she will be watching, the final scene is their reunion and even the movie poster has the caption “What does it take to find a lost love?” Unfortunately, the romance just isn’t convincing. They spend a few days together as children and a few hours together as teenagers, and we are expected to believe they are in love? I just don’t buy it. And the whole film hangs on you buying it.
Jamal’s brother, Salim, is by far the most interesting character, but is only a supporting character. This is frustrating, because Salim’s life story would, I believe, have been a far better story!
Overall
See the film if you want, it is a decent film to watch. But don’t expect to be fully satisfied. All the technical things are there – good cinematography, music, acting, script. But critically, the plot is flawed and most of the characters uninteresting.
Then I was informed twice in the same day that it was (and I quote) ‘amazing’ and ‘phenomenal’. So when I had the chance to see it last night, I went along.
Was it any good? Yes. Was it amazing/phenomenal? No.
Strengths
Firstly, it was a very enjoyable watch – exciting, gripping, funny at times. A good cinematic experience.
The juxtaposition of the familiar Millionaire show with the unfamiliar setting of Indian shanty towns was very clever and worked well without seeming incongruous.
Technically the film was very good – the scenery was excellent, as was the acting.
WeaknessesThe general idea was to show the life story of one boy, mostly in flashback. Think Forrest Gump in India. But what made Forrest Gump so good was the character of Gump, particularly his special needs. Jamal, in Slumdog, just isn’t very interesting.
The plot hangs on Jamal’s feelings for his childhood friend Latika. Some people will dispute this, but remember that he spends his whole life searching for her, he goes on Millionaire because he thinks she will be watching, the final scene is their reunion and even the movie poster has the caption “What does it take to find a lost love?” Unfortunately, the romance just isn’t convincing. They spend a few days together as children and a few hours together as teenagers, and we are expected to believe they are in love? I just don’t buy it. And the whole film hangs on you buying it.
Jamal’s brother, Salim, is by far the most interesting character, but is only a supporting character. This is frustrating, because Salim’s life story would, I believe, have been a far better story!
Overall
See the film if you want, it is a decent film to watch. But don’t expect to be fully satisfied. All the technical things are there – good cinematography, music, acting, script. But critically, the plot is flawed and most of the characters uninteresting.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Cinema over the last 5 years
The last 5 years of cinema have been, in a word, rubbish. Since LOTR, there has been very little of real outstanding quality. Shrek 2 (2004), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006) and The Dark Knight (2008) were great, and Stardust (2007) was superb.
Other than that, there have been some decent films, like The Last King of Scotland, Amazing Grace and Atonement, but nothing of real outstanding quality.
I am disappointed by this. Maybe it’s just because after LOTR, everything else seems a lot weaker. Or maybe cinema really is crap.
On a related note, the years of release of my top 10 films are:
The Shawshank Redemption 1994
The Man in the Iron Mask 1998
The Green Mile 1999
Matrix 1999
Notting Hill 1999
Fight Club 1999
Gladiator 2000
Shrek 2001
LOTR 2001-2003
Stardust 2007
Other films I consider excellent:
Chariots of Fire 1981
Cool Runnings 1992
Forrest Gump 1994
The Usual Suspects 1994
The Rock 1996
Good Will Hunting 1997
A Beautiful Mind 2001
Moulin Rouge 2001
Monsters Inc 2001
Minority Report 2002
Equilibrium 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Shrek 2 2004
Coach Carter 2005
The Prestige 2006
Other than that, there have been some decent films, like The Last King of Scotland, Amazing Grace and Atonement, but nothing of real outstanding quality.
I am disappointed by this. Maybe it’s just because after LOTR, everything else seems a lot weaker. Or maybe cinema really is crap.
On a related note, the years of release of my top 10 films are:
The Shawshank Redemption 1994
The Man in the Iron Mask 1998
The Green Mile 1999
Matrix 1999
Notting Hill 1999
Fight Club 1999
Gladiator 2000
Shrek 2001
LOTR 2001-2003
Stardust 2007
Other films I consider excellent:
Chariots of Fire 1981
Cool Runnings 1992
Forrest Gump 1994
The Usual Suspects 1994
The Rock 1996
Good Will Hunting 1997
A Beautiful Mind 2001
Moulin Rouge 2001
Monsters Inc 2001
Minority Report 2002
Equilibrium 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Shrek 2 2004
Coach Carter 2005
The Prestige 2006
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Google verb game
Instructions: Copy and paste "{your name} eats/wants/looks like/ says etc." into Google and see what comes up - DON'T FORGET THE SPEECH MARKS.
Here’s what is came up with for me:
Ben is…
Dead – good start
A dork – harsh, but maybe fair
Your ideal man – oh yeah
Instructed to point his gun at George - riiight
One of London’s best-known tourist landmarks - awesome
Ben wants…
To be a millionaire – not actually true
U – er…
A normal girl - aww
To make his daughter proud – I didn’t know either
To live - deep
Ben eats…
Cats - random
Crap - tasty
2 scotch bonnets – haha, this is brilliant
Like a dinosaur – I’m the man!
Grapes – it’s true, I love them
Ben will...
Always be my hero – that’s nice
Be missed forever - *sob*
Train and support provider organisations – a man of many talents!
Get a go at Tottenham – realising my dream of being a footballer
Be touring once again – and a rock star
Ben should…
Get concussed every week – ouch!
Shower us with cash – in your (and my) dreams
Be ready for playoff game – football again
Be MVP – yeah! Damn straight I should!
Ben says…
The new season changes everything - oooh
It like it is – no messing
The same thing with slightly different words – yeah, I just rephrase everything
Goodbye – truth, I say it every day
Buy USA – what, the whole thing?
Ben wears…
A duck suit - genius
Prada – er, no
A hat - unlikely
Molly’s glasses – who’s Molly?
A dashing sombrero – and looks hot!
Slippers to interview session – always relaxed
Ben isn’t…
The greensman type – you never know…!
A wimp – people never believe this one
Finished yet – I’m *never* finished
The clone – no, he’s the original
Here, because he’s auditioning for Pop Idol – THE least likely thing ever
Entirely dead on the inside – the outside’s another matter…
Ben looks like…
A porn star – not what I expected
A homeless man – not much better
Johnny Depp – that’s the badger!
A ponce - oh
Harry Potter – I know I’m obsessed but…
Ben can…
Almost walk – I’m getting there
Really motor – this is true
Experience life to the full – good good
Be viewed on the Great Buildings Online web site - haha, there’s my namesake again
Transform into heroic alien forms with extraordinary powers – this is immense!
Ben can’t…
Draw - agreed
Shred the gnar - ??!
Win Big Brother – shame, that’s one ambition down the drain
Come up short – well I am very tall
Go back, because of the potential paradoxes – what?!
Ben has…
Guillain-Barre Syndrome – oh dear
Big future – yay!
High hopes - understatement
To bin his pipe and slippers – what, even for the interview?
Here’s what is came up with for me:
Ben is…
Dead – good start
A dork – harsh, but maybe fair
Your ideal man – oh yeah
Instructed to point his gun at George - riiight
One of London’s best-known tourist landmarks - awesome
Ben wants…
To be a millionaire – not actually true
U – er…
A normal girl - aww
To make his daughter proud – I didn’t know either
To live - deep
Ben eats…
Cats - random
Crap - tasty
2 scotch bonnets – haha, this is brilliant
Like a dinosaur – I’m the man!
Grapes – it’s true, I love them
Ben will...
Always be my hero – that’s nice
Be missed forever - *sob*
Train and support provider organisations – a man of many talents!
Get a go at Tottenham – realising my dream of being a footballer
Be touring once again – and a rock star
Ben should…
Get concussed every week – ouch!
Shower us with cash – in your (and my) dreams
Be ready for playoff game – football again
Be MVP – yeah! Damn straight I should!
Ben says…
The new season changes everything - oooh
It like it is – no messing
The same thing with slightly different words – yeah, I just rephrase everything
Goodbye – truth, I say it every day
Buy USA – what, the whole thing?
Ben wears…
A duck suit - genius
Prada – er, no
A hat - unlikely
Molly’s glasses – who’s Molly?
A dashing sombrero – and looks hot!
Slippers to interview session – always relaxed
Ben isn’t…
The greensman type – you never know…!
A wimp – people never believe this one
Finished yet – I’m *never* finished
The clone – no, he’s the original
Here, because he’s auditioning for Pop Idol – THE least likely thing ever
Entirely dead on the inside – the outside’s another matter…
Ben looks like…
A porn star – not what I expected
A homeless man – not much better
Johnny Depp – that’s the badger!
A ponce - oh
Harry Potter – I know I’m obsessed but…
Ben can…
Almost walk – I’m getting there
Really motor – this is true
Experience life to the full – good good
Be viewed on the Great Buildings Online web site - haha, there’s my namesake again
Transform into heroic alien forms with extraordinary powers – this is immense!
Ben can’t…
Draw - agreed
Shred the gnar - ??!
Win Big Brother – shame, that’s one ambition down the drain
Come up short – well I am very tall
Go back, because of the potential paradoxes – what?!
Ben has…
Guillain-Barre Syndrome – oh dear
Big future – yay!
High hopes - understatement
To bin his pipe and slippers – what, even for the interview?
Monday, February 02, 2009
Investing
I've been thinking...
I've never regretted investing too much in a relationship.
But I've often regretted not investing enough in a relationship.
It might seem obvious, but it particularly occurred to me today.
That is all.
I've never regretted investing too much in a relationship.
But I've often regretted not investing enough in a relationship.
It might seem obvious, but it particularly occurred to me today.
That is all.
Wicked vs Les Mis
I have seen very few musicals at all. I think that by the time I would have been interested in going, we’d moved out of London, and then I never got round to going much. So bear in mind that what I say here is based on very limited experience. There’s not much point to this blog, I’m just rambling about musicals.
From my limited experience, it seems to me that there are two types of musicals:
1. Cheesy, camp productions (the ones I’ve seen are Joseph and Starlight Express)
2. Deeper, more meaningful shows (I’ve seen Wicked and Les Miserables, but I believe Phantom and Blood Brothers fall in this category too)
I’ve seen Les Mis once in the West End and once as a school production (my friend was playing Valjean), and I can remember very little about either. I saw Wicked for the first time a few weeks ago in London and can remember it quite well. Shortly after seeing Wicked I was asked if I preferred it to Les Mis. After some brief thought, I think I said that I thought that Les Mis had better music, but that I loved Kerry Ellis in Wicked. Not the deepest or most thoughtful analysis.
Tonight I’ve been thinking a bit more about these two musicals. Here are my (inexperienced) thoughts.
Wicked
- I’ve seen it much more recently than Les Mis, so it is fresher in my mind and I am much more aware of how the plot works and how the characters all develop.
- The links with The Wizard of Oz are very cool – I love how it all fits in.
- As already mentioned, Kerry Ellis is amazing. She completely owned the show – the best stage performance I’ve ever seen, by an absolute mile.
- I think I prefer the hit songs, such as Loathing, Dancing Through Life, Defying Gravity, For Good, to the ones in Les Mis. Though this may be due to the fact that I’ve seen it more recently, or that Ellis is so good.
Les Miserables
- Les Mis is really epic – certainly the soundtrack is much longer than Wicked, though this may be because Wicked has many more spoken lines.
- I love the backdrop of the French Revolution, the historical context. I guess this is equivalent to the Wizard of Oz point for Wicked.
- The soliloquys in Les Mis are great, and give more depth to the characters. Wicked doesn’t have these so much (just a couple from Elphaba I think).
- Les Mis has a lot of plot lines, with a lot of characters, which Wicked lacks because it is more focused on just the lead character.
Overall, I think that one of the key differences between these two musicals is that Wicked is essentially Elphaba’s story, whereas Les Mis has several lead roles. Therefore Wicked is dominated by Kerry Ellis, while Les Mis has a more complex plot.
I think that if I’d seen the two musicals in the same circumstances, I would rate Les Mis more highly. That’s another way of saying I think Les Mis is better I suppose. But when I saw Les Mis I didn’t completely follow it, and when I saw Wicked I was blown away by Ellis. So that’s another way of saying I prefer Wicked. At the moment.
From my limited experience, it seems to me that there are two types of musicals:
1. Cheesy, camp productions (the ones I’ve seen are Joseph and Starlight Express)
2. Deeper, more meaningful shows (I’ve seen Wicked and Les Miserables, but I believe Phantom and Blood Brothers fall in this category too)
I’ve seen Les Mis once in the West End and once as a school production (my friend was playing Valjean), and I can remember very little about either. I saw Wicked for the first time a few weeks ago in London and can remember it quite well. Shortly after seeing Wicked I was asked if I preferred it to Les Mis. After some brief thought, I think I said that I thought that Les Mis had better music, but that I loved Kerry Ellis in Wicked. Not the deepest or most thoughtful analysis.
Tonight I’ve been thinking a bit more about these two musicals. Here are my (inexperienced) thoughts.
Wicked
- I’ve seen it much more recently than Les Mis, so it is fresher in my mind and I am much more aware of how the plot works and how the characters all develop.
- The links with The Wizard of Oz are very cool – I love how it all fits in.
- As already mentioned, Kerry Ellis is amazing. She completely owned the show – the best stage performance I’ve ever seen, by an absolute mile.
- I think I prefer the hit songs, such as Loathing, Dancing Through Life, Defying Gravity, For Good, to the ones in Les Mis. Though this may be due to the fact that I’ve seen it more recently, or that Ellis is so good.
Les Miserables
- Les Mis is really epic – certainly the soundtrack is much longer than Wicked, though this may be because Wicked has many more spoken lines.
- I love the backdrop of the French Revolution, the historical context. I guess this is equivalent to the Wizard of Oz point for Wicked.
- The soliloquys in Les Mis are great, and give more depth to the characters. Wicked doesn’t have these so much (just a couple from Elphaba I think).
- Les Mis has a lot of plot lines, with a lot of characters, which Wicked lacks because it is more focused on just the lead character.
Overall, I think that one of the key differences between these two musicals is that Wicked is essentially Elphaba’s story, whereas Les Mis has several lead roles. Therefore Wicked is dominated by Kerry Ellis, while Les Mis has a more complex plot.
I think that if I’d seen the two musicals in the same circumstances, I would rate Les Mis more highly. That’s another way of saying I think Les Mis is better I suppose. But when I saw Les Mis I didn’t completely follow it, and when I saw Wicked I was blown away by Ellis. So that’s another way of saying I prefer Wicked. At the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)