Les Miserables

I saw it last night.  A few comments follow.
It was, overall, excellent.  The cast do a great job.  Russel Crowe is fine, nowhere near as bad as people have made him out to be.  Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are just as good as everyone says.  Jackman's probably even better.  Amanda Seyfried particularly impressed me as this is the only time I've seen Les Mis (I've seen it 4 times now) and haven't got fed up with Cosette's drippiness.  It's strange that I, as well as many others I have spoken to, normally root for the young Cosette but the adult Eponine.  Here I rooted for the adult Cosette as well.  Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were hilarious, and Eddie Raymane was very good.
Obviously, the music was superb.  That's kind of the point.  But I thought the volume was too low.  I don't know if it's the cinema we went to or the film itself, but I was occasionally underwhelmed.  I sometimes felt a little distanced from the screen in a way that doesn't normally happen, because of the low sound levels.
Yes, I cried.  And, because people will ask, I cried at I dreamed a dream, Did you hear the people sing?, A little fall of rain, Drink with me, and Finale.  I was particularly gutted that they only did one verse of Drink with me.
There were some negatives, but the main one is not the fault of the film itself, it's the fault of the source material.  I always think that after the climax of The final battle, the sewers, and Javert's suicide, the show takes too long to end.  Empty chairs is excellent, and I guess Every day is necessary, but Turning is excessive and Beggars at the feast just doesn't fit with what's going on.  It spoils the mood.  Because the film includes everything in the musical, it has these weaknesses.
I've noticed how often this is the case.  Lord of the Rings is such a good film because the source material is so good.  I enjoyed the middle section of Life of Pi but thought the first act was boring and the ending just laughable - but that's more the fault of the book than the film adaptation.  The weakness in the Les Mis film is, similarly, down to the source material rather than the film itself.
However, overall, it was excellent.  Let's just say that the pre-race favourite, The Desolation of Smaug, certainly has it's work cut out to be named my film of the year in 12 months time.

Films of 2012

31. Shaft
This was just utterly boring.  An awful film.  Avoid.

30. Coriolanus
If tried and tried, but I just don't like Shakespeare.  I thought the plot of this was average to poor, and I can't stand the whole Shakespearian-language-in-a-modern-setting thing they keep doing.

29. The Lord of the Rings
No, not the new one.  The 1978 animated one.  Really very poor.  Laughable in fact.  Thank God for Peter Jackson.

28. Alien: Resurrection
Ludicrous.  Didn't even make sense.  Some cool action, and Sigourney Weaver, were the only positives.

27. Dante's Peak
Similar to above but slightly less ludicrous and without Sigourney Weaver.

26. 12 Monkeys
I've seen it twice and I couldn't tell you what it's about.  Very forgettable, except for Brad Pitt's brilliant performance - the only thing that saves the film.

25. American Psycho
Christian Bale is superb as always and the film is strangely gripping, but in the end it's not much more than a load of rubbish.

24. Source Code
A brilliant idea which falls apart when it runs into logic.  Not an awful film but far from satisfactory.  Some good ideas, but in the end, I felt cheated of an actual storyline.

23. Drive
I quite liked the first half, mainly because of Carey Mulligan.  The second half kind of fell apart, and not even a bit of Carey Mulligan could hold it together.  Half of a reasonable film.

22. Nativity 2
A few hilarious scenes that had me laughing out loud, but the ridiculous plot means that this is not a good film.  Entertaining, but not quality.

21. The Wolfman
This was ok.  Not particularly good, not particularly bad, just ok.

20. Spartacus
Long, but I don't mind that.  Some pretty dramatic stuff.  Just not that inspiring or gripping in the end.  It's like the Tesco Value version of Gladiator.

19. Juno
A good, fun, lighthearted film.  I enjoyed watching this, though I probably wouldn't bother watching it again.

18. The Recruit
This was a reasonable film.  Some very gripping moments.  But ultimately, it's a spy film, and I don't really like spy films.

17. Phantom of the Opera
This was reasonable.  Really good music, nicely done.

16. Life of Pi
Great effects, though that's not unusual these days.  I really liked large chunks of it, but it had a lame ending. and not a great start.

15. Looper
Some excellent moments, and they really tries hard to make it a sensible film.  It was great to watch, but met the obstacle that every time-travel film meets: its doesn't make any sense.

14. What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
This would be a lot lower if it weren't for Leonardo DiCaprio.  He is amazing in this.  Other than him, it's not that special, but his performance is outstanding.

13. Contagion
I missed this in the cinema so was happy to see it on DVD.  It's exciting and gripping.  A good film.

12. The Wrestler
This was very good, very watchable, but had a disappointing ending.

11. Phone Booth
What a brilliant idea, and really well done.  Very exciting, and Colin Farrell is excellent.

10. An Education
This is a decent film.  But Carey Mulligan is, as always, brilliant.  She makes this film.

7=. Brave
Pixar never really fail do they?  Good plot, great animation, watchable, funny.

7=. Alien
Some amazing scenes and great acting.  Completely gripping.  Limited by poor effects, but that's about it.

7=. Alien 3
More like Aliens than Alien, but not quite as good as Aliens and about as good as Alien.

6.  Aliens
Bigger, more exciting, more impressive than Alien.  And therefore slightly better.

4=. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Quality.  In pretty much every respect.  A really, really good film.  David Fincher is definitely one of my favourite directors.

4=. Holes
Wow.  Quite simple, and quite a small film, but really good.  Very deep and thought provoking, and also very entertaining.

2=. The Hunger Games
Great plot, great action, great characters - a great film.

2=. The Dark Knight Rises
There was a lot of pressure on this film, but it delivered.  All round excellence.  Review here.

1.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
No, it's not LOTR.  So far, it's certainly not as good as LOTR.  But it still does almost everything better than almost any other film.  If most films are on Earth, and LOTR is on another planet, then this still is one of the films that is on the moon.  Review here.

Albums of 2012

Here is a ranked list of the albums I have got this year.  Just in case anyone cares.  Bizzarely, there are three times as many albums on this list as on last year's.  It seems I have acquired a lot of new music this year.

21.  Northern Lights - Someone Else's Eyes
This is ok.  Some nice tunes.  Just not very interesting.

20.  Jamie Hill - One Day
Meh.  It's just ok.

19.  Phil Joel - The Deliberate People
Some reasonable songs here.  Nothing special though.

18.  Sigur Ros - Valtari
Other than () and Takk, I'm not too fussed by Sigur Ros.  Those two albums are incredible.  This one is ok.

17.  Soul Survivor - Soul Survivor 2011
This is quite mediocre.  The best songs on here are the ones of Matt Redman's album or One Thing Remains - all of which I already knew.  Not that impressive.

16.  The Gentlemen - A Candid History of Faith, Hope, Love
This is cool.  Not as good as their first album, but not bad.

15.  Bluetree - Kingdom
Quite underwhelming after their impressive first album, but some decent songs here.

14.  Syntactical Sugar - The Deuteronomy
This is pretty cool.  Not amazing, but no weak points.

13.  The Last Spectacular - The Last Spectacular
A nice album, featuring, but unfortunately dominated by the outstanding No Resistance.

12.  Jenny and Tyler - This Isn't a Dream
Some really nice songs.  A good album, though it doesn't hit the heights of some of their other stuff.

9=.  Jenny and Tyler - Open Your Doors
Slightly better, including the lovely Skyline Hill.

9=.  Bloc Party - Four
This is certainly no Weekend in the City, but it still has some really good songs.

9=.  The Birthday Suit - A Conversation Well Rehearsed
Solid.  Just very solid all round.

8.  Something Like Silas - Divine Intervention
Similarly solid.  I really like listening to this album.

7.  The Temper Trap - The Temper Trap
The Temper Trap are really good, and this album is really good.

6.  Tom + Olly - Spirals
I love Tom + Olly's style.  This album is packed full of tunes.

4=.  Muse - The 2nd Law
Another very strong album from the inimitable Muse.  Highlights include Madness, Follow Me and Big Freeze.

4=.  Anberlin - Vital
A happy return to form after the previous album.  Great stuff.  Anberlin back to (almost) their best.

3.  Jesus Culture - Come Away
Very strong.  Just very strong.  They really are excellent at this stuff.

2.  The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour
Very surprising.  This band only appeared this year.  But this is really good.  Not quite Idlewild-good (The frontman is former Idlewild guitarist Rod Jones), but still really good.

1.  Jenny and Tyler - Faint Not
A very good album, with at least 5 superb songs, including probably my song of the year, Song For You.


It should be noted that I also got The Chilis' Stadium Arcadium this year, but couldn't committ to putting it on this list as it's a double album, which felt a bit like cheating.  I do like it though.  There were also some decent EPs this year: This is Freedom - Welcome Home; To Kill a King - My Crooked Saint; Martin Smith - God's Great Dancefloor; Lifecolour - Time to be Free; Dennis - Colliery Welfare.

The Hobbit: review

Here are my thoughts, in a slightly structured but slightly random order.  I will try to limit comments on large scale adaptation of the book until I've seen all three films in a couple of years.  Spoilers follow.

• I've seen the film in 2D and 3D.  3D still does not impress me - it just costs a bit more and makes my eyes hurt a bit.  I expect that 3D IMAX would be very impressive, but I haven't seen it.  I also haven't seen the film in 48fps, so I can't comment much on it - but I expect it looks good and I expect it to become the cinematic norm.
• It was great to see Ian Holm and Elijah Wood in the film.  It helps to connect the film to LOTR.  I actually teared up when these two came on screen.
• Martin Freeman is perfect.  I expected him to be very good, but he exceeded my expectations.  Simply outstanding.  He's a very capable serious actor but also has a great deadpan humour about him.  Sometimes it was just like watching him in The Office (in a good way).
• New Zealand looks, if anything, even more spectacular than it did in LOTR.  Some of the wide shots are stunning.
• The soundtrack is brilliant, both in it's own right and in the way it connects to the LOTR soundtrack.  Howard Shore, I salute you.
• All three LOTR films started with some sort of prologue, and the first Hobbit film followed the pattern.  It worked really well, especially with Ian Holm's Bilbo narrating it.  I also liked the bonus prologue section later on detailing Azog and Thorin's enmity (more on Azog later).
• The party scene was an excellent to introduce the dwarves.  It was full of humour but also meaty exposition.  It started to paint the picture of dwarven culture.  And it had some really good camerawork too.
• Riddles in the dark was superb.  Everything I'd hoped for.  It's one of my favourite scenes from any book, and I was not let down.  I've already said how good Freeman is, and Serkis is, of course, a master.
• The action sequences were sometimes a bit ridiculous.  The troll fight was good, as was the battle outside Moria, but the storm-giants scene and the escape from goblin-town were ludicrously overdone.  The storm-giants scene was unnecessary, and there was little chance anyone would have survived such an encounter, let alone all 15 of them.  Similarly, sequences in goblin-town were very unconvincing, especially with respect to the survival rate of the heroes.  One reviewer described these scenes as "extended, jovially bloody battle between dwarves and goblins, larded with visual jokes involving decapitation, disembowelment, and baddies crushed by rolling rocks. The sequence is more like a body-count video game than like anything in the sedate novel, where battles are confused and brief and frightening, rather than exuberant eye-candy ballet."
• The warg attack was excessive and unnecessary.  It slowed the story down.  They could have just let Radagast go back to keep an eye on Mirkwood, and have Gandalf convince Thorin to go to Rivendell to check out the map.
• One common criticism has been that the dwarves are just a bunch of personality-less simulacrums.  To an extent I agree with this.  I think Dwalin, Balin, Fili and Kili are distinct, partly because they arrive at the party in small groups, and Bofur is too, because he has an enlargened role and everyone always remembers James Nesbitt.  But the others lack screen time as individuals and lack opportunities to show themselves.  I can understand that a viewer would struggle to identify with many of them, especially if they hadn't been following the film's developments in advance.  I think Jackson could have spent more time with the dwarves, developing their characters, and cut the warg attack.
• The troll scene good - funny but also perilous, and another chance to see the dwarves in action just being dwarves - as I just mentioned, the film needed more of this.
• I liked the Radagast/Necromancer stuff.  It added an extra level of plot and peril above what was going on in the dwarves' quest, and it helped to start linking the film to LOTR.
• Azog's role was changed from the book.  This was good.  It helped expand Thorin's role and added an extra elements of suspense.  It also provided this first film with a climax - much like the character or Lurtz did for FOTR.  More on Azog here.
• The use of the orc language confused me.  In LOTR, orc and uruk-hai use the common tongue - not precisely accurate, but it makes sense from a simplicity point of view and makes the film easier to watch.  In The Hobbit, orc spoke their own language (subtitled) while on their own, and used the common tongue in scenes with dwarves.  This just seemed inconsistent with LOTR, which is a shame while most of the film is consistent.  It would have been better to just keep the orcs using the common tongue.
• Gandalf's magic seemed inconsistent especially compared with LOTR.  He uses his magic a lot more in The Hobbit, or at least a lot more overtly.  Which begs the question, why didn't he use it more in LOTR.  Again, this is a consistency issue between the two trilogies.  It will be interesting to see what happens in parts 2 and 3.
• I think they chose a good point at which to break the film - between the eagles and Beorn.
• When Thorin charges Azog at the end of the film, the music playing is the Nazgul theme.  This baffled me.  I have no idea why they did this.  Anyone care to suggest a reason?
• FOTR was practically the perfect film.  It had no weaknesses.  This wasn't as strong an opening to a trilogy as that was, but this was nevertheless an excellent film.  And I expect that the extended edition will include more dwarvishness, which I will enjoy.
• Overall - a great film and excellent adaptation.  A very promising start to the trilogy indeed.  A bit to action-heavy for me, and the action that was there was sometimes over the top.  But other than that I have very few complaints.  My film of the year, perhaps?  That list will come soon.

Soundtrack of 2012

Here is my soundtrack of 2012 - the songs I have been listening to most this year.

The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour (no video available)
I love the start of this song - the guitar, drums everything.  A very catchy song, with great melodies.

Bluetree - Burn Me Up
From when Bluetree weren't afraid to be creative.  I love how stripped back large parts of this are.

DC Talk - In The Light
A very funky song.  DCTalk doing what they do so well.  Great sounds, great message.

Dennis - Ella
I love listening to this song.  Very upbeat, and a lot of fun.

Dennis - Carry Me Home (no video available, but you can listen here)
Possibly my favourite Dennis song.  It's just lovely.  I love the build through the choruses near the end.

Easyworld - A Stain To Never Fade
An old song that reminds me of being a teenager.  David Ford's vocals are still ridiculous.

Jenny and Tyler - Song For You
Possibly my song of the year, and on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list.  It's just massive.

Jenny and Tyler - Through Your Eyes
Beautifully haunting?  Hauntingly beautiful?  Either way, this song is wonderful.

Jenny and Tyler - Skyline Hill
Not normally the sort of thing I'd go for, but this song grabbed me this year and didn't let go.

Jesus Culture - Come Away/Let Me In
Jesus Culture are so good at what they do.  I love the positivity of this song.

The Last Spectacular - No Resistance (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song, possibly more than any other song, impressed me from the very first time I heard it.  Another on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list.

Lifecolour - Faking Masqurades (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song reminds me of Hebron.  I don't know why.  I just love it.

Muse - Follow Me
Another great song by Muse, they just keep coming.

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Otherside
An old song, but it's been in my head all year.  It has everything I love about the Chilis.

Rock'n'Roll Worship Circus - Everybody Awake
Fun, optimistic, and a good tune.  This was the first song onto my soundtrack this year.

Sigur Ros - Vaka
A lovely tune.  Interestingly, the only Sigur Ros song I can sing by heart in its entirety.

The Sunshine Underground - The Messiah
I love how this song is less than 6 minutes long, but feels like at least 8.  Some great moments of music here.

Things I looked forward to in 2012

About a year ago I posted a list of things I was looking forward to in 2012.  All but one of these have now happened, and the last, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, will probably get a review post of its own.

Here is what I thought of these things.

Continuing reading The Malazan Book of the Fallen - I'm half-way through book six of this ten-book epic, having taken an extended break from August to October after book five.  I like it a lot, though it's one of the hardest things I've read.  A full review might come next year.

Returning to Monday night football - it has been so good to play semi-regular sport again.  I missed it a lot.  The injury is still there and is still limiting, but I'm coping with it.

Game of Thrones series 2 - brilliant.  Lived up to expectations following series 1.  Bring on series 3 in the Spring.

Kingdom by Bluetree - a disappointment, compared to their first album.  Not completely hopeless, but much weaker than I'd expected.  Review here.

June Project - in half term! - It was great to be involved again.  I co-led team sport, as I'd done on the first JP back in 2007.  Great times.

The Dark Knight Rises - at the time of writing, my joint top film of the year.  Almost guaranteed to stay in the top three by the end of the year.  Well done Chris Nolan and co.  Review here.

Lord of the Rings Lego - I haven't bought any of it, but the models look pretty good.  Lego just looks less impressive than it used to though, which is sad.  I'm still waiting for a model of Minas Tirith.

Weddings (including one of my oldest friends and my sister (not to each other)) - really fun.  Steve's seems a very long time ago now, but it was a great day.  Jenny's was wonderful, of course.  I ushered and MCed which was a lot of work but even more fun.

London 2012 - it was amazing, wasn't it?  Though it didn't exceed my expectations.  My expectations were very high, and the Olympics just about delivered.  More here.

Red Dwarf series 10 - variable, to be honest.  Some outstanding moments, and generally entertaining, but overall not as good as the older stuff.  Most episodes tended to focus on cheap gags rather than actual situational comedy and character comedy.

Honour Spotlight: Chris Juby

Chris Juby is a friend of mine from church.  I've known him for about 6 years.  In that time I've come to realise we are quite similar in some ways.  We're both geeks.  We're both into music.  We've had the same phone as each other for the last 5 years.  Talking to Chris is something I find easy to do, but is always an 'experience'.  The guy has all sorts of bizarre and interesting knowledge.  I remember having lunch together once and covering topics such as number plates, phone numbers and postcodes.  You wouldn't think these would be interesting, but Chris has a way of making them interesting.
Chris is a really deep thinker.  I like this, because it make me feel less strange for being one too.  But while my thinking is very analytical, Chris' is...visionary.  He sees stuff I had no idea could be seen.  He even has a theology of Mary Poppins, which sounds bizarre but actually makes a lot of sense when you hear it.  Chris has so many ideas and plans and thoughts in his head that he's been thinking about and praying about and investing in - it's really quite staggering.  I don't think I know anyone else who has as much vision for things as Chris.

He is also hilarious.  He'll do or say something completely off the wall, and then laugh to himself for a few seconds while everyone else takes a while to get it.  Then you'll realise it's funny, but by that time he'll be making another joke.  When he gets on a roll he can keep me entertained for hours, just talking and giggling away to himself.

Chris leads worship at our church.  I remember talking to him a few years ago about Matt Redman, and he said 'when Matt Redman leads worship, you get the feeling he's been praying about it for, literally, years'.  I get the same feeling when Chris leads worship.  He is so good at understanding what's going on in the room and in the congregation, and leading them on.
I've always thought that Chris exudes a kind of quiet self-confidence.  He knows his strengths and weaknesses but doesn't become defined by them.  I like that.
Chris is a bit of a role model for me.  But don't tell him that, he'll be embarrassed...

Why I am like Arsenal

A few days ago my housemate posed the question 'if you were a football team, who would you be?'  My almost immediate response was 'Arsenal - idealistic but not always effective'.
I have since thought more about this.  The analogy is by no means perfect, so please don't be offended by the final comparison!  Also, you will need a working knowledge of both Arsenal Football Club and myself to understand this.

Reasons why I am like Arsenal:

• Idealistic, but not always realistic
• When I get it right, it's a sight to behold
• When I get it wrong, you might wonder what on earth I was thinking
• Prone to unpredictable collapses on occasion
• I always back myself and believe in what I do
• The guy in charge can do a lot with very little

Kids these days

Last week I went on a two-day school trip to London.  We went on a sightseeing tour, saw Wicked, and went to the Warner Bros studios.  A few things on this trip highlighted to me how different the kids were to what I was like at their age.  Few if any of these things were new to me, but realising or remembering them all in a short space of time was interesting.

1. Within about 20 minutes of leaving on the Thursday morning, before we even got to Darlington, some of the kids were asking 'are we nearly there yet?'  There weren't joking.  They actually thought that, after 20 minutes of driving, we were probably nearly at London.  They had no idea how far away London is.  When, at one point, we said we were near Leeds, hardly any kids had heard of the place.
2. Because we were going to the Warner Bros studios, we had a Harry Potter quiz on the way down.  I wrote it (obviously), and based the questions on the books (even more obviously).  That meant that some of the questions couldn't be answered if you'd only seen the films.  Almost all the kids had seen at least some of the films.  Hardly any had read any of the books.  I was actually shocked at how many of these pretty big Potter fans hadn't read any of the books.  When we asked why, they simply said 'I don't read'.  Like, ever.  Reading was just not something they did.  Over the course of the whole trip, I saw just one child (out of 55) reading a book.
3. Most of the kids took spending money in the region of £150-200.  For a two-day, one-night trip.  At their age I would probably have taken £20.  Wow.
4. We spent an hour or so walking round London, seeing some of the sights.  Many of the kids really struggled to deal with so much walking.  An hour.  At a relatively slow place, with a fair few pauses.  They were just not used to walking anywhere.
5. One kid lost his phone.  His reaction?  He looked for it in his bag, and his hotel room, and then shrugged and said 'It's ok, I'll get an iPhone for Christmas'.  The culture of disposability.
6. At the Harry Potter studios, most of the kids had their phones or cameras out to take photos.  Fair enough.  But some of them did this to such an extent that they barely even looked at the exhibits.  They were using their phones instead of their eyes.  They could have just stayed at home, given me a camera, and got me to email them the photos when I got back, and they'd have had pretty much the same experience.  Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but they did seem to be sacrificing the moment itself for the sake of recording the moment.
7. Having said all this, it was very sweet to see their reactions when we got back to school on the Friday night.  It was as if they'd been away for a month, they were so delighted to be home.  Of course, for many of them, it was the longest time they'd been away from home.

As I said, I knew all this stuff.  But seeing it all in a short space of time really brought it home to me how much the childhoods of these kids were different to mine.  Something to ponder.

Albums in thirds

Epic geekery here.

I have a theory that an important factor in making a good album is to have a strong final third.  So many albums start well but tail off towards the end.  Sometimes this is because the artist doesn't really have enough good songs to make an album, and packs their two or three decent singles in the first 5 tracks.

I have analysed 145 of my albums to find out a few things.  I mainly wanted to know the proportion of the albums that bucked the trend and finished well, and whether there were any patterns from any particular artists.

I did this by splitting albums in half and awarding a point to whichever half was strongest, and splitting albums into thirds and awarding three, two and one points for the strongest, middle and weakest thirds respectively.  I only did this for albums that (a) had at least 9 tracks, and (b) I was confident I knew well enough to analyse well.
There were various problems with the method.  It's hard to split an 11 track album into thirds, for example.  Or, this gives no indication of how much better one section of an album is than another.  But given the resources available (time, energy, inclination, knowledge, ability), it was the best I could do.

The findings?  Of 145 albums, 120 had a stronger first half and only 25 had a stronger second half.  The total points for thirds were: 1st third - 382; 2nd third - 259; 3rd third - 229.  So the final third is not, on average, much weaker than the middle third - but the first third is definitely the strongest.  And first halves are stronger about 80% of the time.
A total of 59 albums were 'perfectly front heavy' - that is, the first third was the strongest, the final third was the weakest, and the first half was stronger than the second.  Only 6 albums were the opposite - first third weakest, final third strongest, second half stronger than the first.  These six albums, if you are wondering, are Athlete - Beyond the Neighbourhood, Bottlerockit - Angel on a Vespa, British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power, Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and all his Friends, Hurts - Happiness, and Lifehouse - No Name Face.

In terms of artists, I looked at any artist with three or more albums on the list, and looked for patterns.
Anberlin: consistently front heavy (i.e. strongest in the opening third), with weak middles.
Athlete: very varied, no pattern, each album is very different
Bloc Party: always front heavy, except for their best album, A Weekend in the City, which is back heavy
British Sea Power: same as Bloc Party - front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Casting Crowns: always perfectly front heavy and declining throughout the album
Coldplay: slightly varies but mostly front heavy
Delirious: generally front heavy, lots of weak middles
Enya: front heavy, except for her first two albums
Idlewild: very varied, like Athlete
The Killers: always front heavy
Lifehouse: front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Matt Redman: front heavy except for his best album
Mew: consistently front heavy
Muse: front heavy
Oasis: generally front heavy
Stellastarr*: front heavy with weak middles
Tim Hughes: front heavy
U2: front heavy

The pattern is pretty clear throughout: most albums are front heavy.  Interestingly, there are several artists whose strongest album is the only one that is back heavy.  Of the nine of my top ten albums of the decade for 2000-2009 that were in this analysis, only 1 had the final third as its weakest section, and 5 had it as the strongest section.  It seems that, for me at least, a strong final third is an important factor in a good album.

Football and the pinch of salt

I like watching football.  I support Liverpool.  But I view my support of them as a bit of a hobby.  I think I am less fussed about how they do than many of my friends are about their own teams.  I would like to support them more ardently, but I don't think I can justify it.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games.  It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly.  I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens.  It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence.  Big decisions that change the game.  It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups.  Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt.  I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically.  I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.

In defence of Harry Potter

This link was recently posted on my Facebook wall.  I promised a blogged response, so here it is.  I suggest you read the linked article before this post, as I will be responding to the points made in the article.

First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm.  This is inaccurate.  While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm.  The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers.  The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave.  His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.

The author is unhappy that Harry, while not being good at much, is "touted by others as being a wonderful and excellent wizard for no discernible reason".  Two points in response to this.  Firstly, the times he is praised by many people are the times when he has done something particularly good, such as killing a basilisk, evading a dragon or escaping from Voldemort.  Secondly, a lot of the hype placed on Harry throughout the series is because he (admittedly unknowingly) caused first downfall.  It's the standard response to a saviour-hero.  Nothing that unusual, and certainly not Harry's fault.

The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill.  This is simply incorrect.  Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not.  Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on.  Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.

Harry is then criticised for not trying hard enough in the Triwizard Tournament, and for needing help to get through it.  It should be noted that both Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, the strongest wizard and witch from their respective schools, needed help from their mentors.  Harry is about three years younger than them and probably gets no more help than them.

Then comes a classic issue: angry-Harry in book 5.  I've said before that, given Harry's circumstances, a little anger is not unexpected and maybe even reasonable.  He acts like a normal teenager would.  The author of the article acknowledges this, but argues that Harry is not a normal teenager.  However, the author gives no reason for this argument, but simply goes on to criticise Rowling's writing - a separate issue that gives no evidence to the debate over Harry's anger.  Hence, there is no argument that Harry is not a normal teenager. I would like to point out that (a) I don't happen to think he is a normal teenager, but the article gives no evidence for claiming that he isn't, and (b) I don't think he is sufficiently abnormal to be immune to anger!

So, that's Harry defended.  He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be?  He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.

Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing.  The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing.  Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view).  Harry is initially just a kid.  He's young.  Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way.  Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books.  It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges.  He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling.  There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black).  The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character.  That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.

Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense.  Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament.  Two points in defence of this.  One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools.  Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years.  It was a massive deal.  I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding.  The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety.  The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort.  However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy.  This is all explained at the end of book five.  Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry?  Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions.  Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it.  Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.
Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it?  Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out.  It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic?  The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy.  From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?

Dumbledore kept information from Harry for two reasons.  One is explained in book six (Harry even asks this question!) - Dumbledore told Harry everything he knew for certain; from then on, it was guesswork.  The second is that Dumbledore was a master schemer.  He kept information from people all the time, you could argue he even sacrificed people for the long-term goal of killing Voldemort.  Dumbledore's character is possibly the most interesting of the lot.  Remember the whole 'greater good' thing from his youth?  I reckon he carried elements of that on through his life.

Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths.  Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant.  I fail to see how it isn't both of these.  It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic.  As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series.  Secondly, Lupin and Tonks.  Here I have to concede the point.  I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).

Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent.  The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'.  The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching).  Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal.  The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch.  Veritaserum?  To be honest, I don't know.  This may well be a plot hole.  But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally.  Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows.  In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.

Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.

The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.

So there we go.  My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.

Gove's plan hides a bigger problem

The education system, and particularly its assessment, is a bit of a mess.  This has been clear to me since I started teaching, 4 years ago.  Grade boundaries fluctuate, sometimes wildly.  The difference between a C in one qualification and another can be huge.  Many exams are an unrealistic way of assessing people.  The number of resits that can be taken has become absurd.  Teaching to the test is rife.  Grade inflation has become a joke.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things.  I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make.  I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.

First, a bit of background.  A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced.  This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language.  Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability.  Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs.  This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac.  The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac.  In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects.  It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take.  (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)

In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to  start with).  It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules.  It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11.  The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation.  A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago.  Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth).  This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one.  More rigour is needed.  Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results.  Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with).  (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)

However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake.  Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have.  At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June.  Mental.  But stopping modules altogether is a step too far.  As is removing coursework.  I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils.  In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that.  The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world.  This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.

Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration.  A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades.  Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades.  Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority.  Classic Tory.

However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem.  The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results.  Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be).  The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can.  Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.

Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there.  This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons.  Grade inflation for one.  The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two.  Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one.  Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year.  Which pupils get extra help for coursework.  Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier.  Teaching to the test.  Pupils breaking down with stress.  Staff breaking down with stress.

There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules.  There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils.  But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment.  I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment).  But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer.  That would be Mr Gove's job.  And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.

First World Problems

I've had a bad day (bear with me, this post is not just a whine).  I started off pretty tired, physically and emotionally.  My sister got married on Saturday - I was ushering and managing logistics.  We finished clearing up at about 12, then I had to be at church for 8 to set up on Sunday morning.  Following church and then clearing up from it, I was helping to clear the wedding reception until about 5.  Then there was the mix of emotions that goes with one's sister getting married, and the bizzare feeling of situations like seeing my oldest friend, Annie, for the first time in about 3 years, and only having time for a quick hug,
I woke up pretty shattered.  And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching.  The last thing I wanted was the first day of term.  Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday.  Yes, that's the day the kids come back.  And the labs will be empty when they arrive.  Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue.  When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock.  It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam.  I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal.  I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.

This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening.  I reckoned I needed to get some perspective.  As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'.  I remembered that I have a continual supply of food.  I have a phone, a car, and a house.  I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive.  I have a laptop on which to write this.  I have had amazing experiences in the past.  I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth.  I have done Lord of the Rings marathons.  I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset.  I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times.  I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times.  I've been up the Eiffel Tower.  I've watched live athletics at London 2012.  I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life.  My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.

The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening.  My short-sightedness is shameful.  And the scary thing is, I do this every day.  And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.

An unusual preference

I have a preference that I have noticed is unusual.

I like long films.  I've realised this over the last few years - I hardly ever think a film is too long, but I often think a film is too short.  Other people seem to often complain about films being too long, but I like long films.  I find that films under about two hours seem to finish before they've really got started.  I enjoy the depth of plot that can occur in a film of 2.5-3 hours.
I quickly made a list of 22 of my favourite films.  Even using the short versions of the Lord of the rings films, the average film length was 2 hours 22 minutes.  And that's including three anomalies at 92, 95 and 98 minutes.
I tried this with my list of contenders for greatest song ever - 23 songs, at an average length of 4 minutes 54 seconds.  Then I tried it with 27 of my favourite albums - average length of 50 minutes and 28 seconds.

A brief internet search suggests that the average film length is 2 hours (22 minutes short of my average), the average song length (in western culture) is 4 minutes (54 seconds short of my average), and the average album length is 43 minutes (7.28 minutes short of my average).
Further maths gives my average film length at 18% longer than average, my average song length at 22.5% longer than average, and my average album length at 17% longer than average.

I've noticed that I like long books too - I'm currently half-way through a ten-book series, each book having about 1000 pages.  The reason for this may be similar to the reason for the films - more length allows greater plot depth and complexity, greater character development, and I find that, as long as it's good, I don't get bored.  I'm not sure about the music though.  Probably similar reasons - I find that  short songs are over too soon - I don't have as much time to fully get into them.  Same with albums - over before they've begun.

It seems that most people like things to be a little shorter than I do.  I'm not sure why.