Delirious song ranking

It's nice having the Easter holidays to do geeky things.  Yesterday, Chris Morgan and I decided to independently rank all songs by Delirious on their main 7 studio albums, and then compare our opinions.  To clarify, we were ranking songs from King of Fools, Mezzamorphis, Glo, Audio Lessonover, World Service, Mission Bell and Kingdom of Comfort.  We included songs from both UK and US versions of Audio Lessonover.  This gave us a total of 88 songs.
Here are our lists.

Rank	Ben	Chris
1	My Glorious	My Glorious
2	Investigate	Investigate
3	White ribbon day	Heaven
4	Heaven	God in Heaven
5	God is smiling	God is Smiling
6	History maker	Here I am Send Me
7	Mountain's High	Miracle Maker
8	Alien	Rain Down
9	Deeper	Promise
10	The years go by	History Maker
11	God you are my God	God's Romance
12	King or cripple	Feel it Coming on
13	Jesus blood	White Ribbon Day
14	Inside outside	Love will find a Way
15	God in heaven	Deeper
16	Revival town	God You are my God
17	Love will find a way	Mountains High
18	God's Romance	All this time
19	Take me away	Touch
20	Feel it coming on	Take me away
21	Everything	Awaken the dawn
22	Rain down	Love is the compass
23	Promise	Grace like a river
24	Wonder	Hallelujah
25	Awaken the dawn	Jesus' blood
26	Miracle maker	Hang on to You
27	Hang on to you	Wonder
28	Bliss	Show me Heaven
29	Our God reigns	Stare the Monster Down
30	Touch	Bliss
31	Here I am send me	Sanctify
32	Sanctify	Love falls down
33	With you	With You
34	Follow	King or Cripple
35	Eagle rider	Fires Burn
36	Fires Burn	Break the Silence
37	King of fools	Majesty
38	It's ok	Follow
39	Love falls down	Paint the Town Red
40	Majesty	Inside Outside
41	The mezzanine floor	Everything
42	Metamorphis	Waiting for the Summer
43	August 30th	Fire
44	Every little thing	Give what you got
45	Break the silence	King of Fools
46	A little love	Solid Rock
47	America	Revival Town
48	Mothers of the night	Now is the Time
49	Hallelujah	Our God Reigns
50	All this time	Mezzanine Floor
51	Now is the time	Alien
52	Paint the town red	Mothers of the Night
53	Stare the monster down	The Years go by
54	Show me heaven	Kingdom of Comfort
55	Solid rock	See the star
56	Waiting for the summer	Every Little Thing
57	Kingdom of comfort	August 30th
58	Give what you've got	Angel in Disguise
59	Grace like a river	Gravity
60	See the star	Take off my shoes
61	Love is the compass	My Soul Sings
62	Fire	Rollercoaster
63	Louder than the radio	Metamorphis
64	Gravity	Eagle Rider
65	Free	We give you Praise
66	All the way	Free
67	Angel in disguise	Intimate Stranger
68	My soul sings	All the Way
69	What a friend I've found	It's OK
70	Everyone knows	What a friend
71	Hands of kindness	Stronger
72	Stronger	There is an angel
73	Rollercoaster	Blindfold
74	I was blind	All God's Children
75	We give you praise	I was blind
76	Intimate stranger	What would I have done
77	Take off my shoes	A little love
78	Love is a miracle	Hands of Kindness
79	All God's children	Kiss your feet
80	What would I have Done	Louder than the Radio
81	Kiss your feet	Everyone knows
82	Beautiful Sun	America
83	There is an angel	How sweet the name
84	I'll see you	I'll See You
85	How sweet the name	Beautiful Sun
86	Blindfold	Love is a miracle
87	Bicycle gasoline	Bicycle Gasoline
88	Stealing time	Stealing time

As you can see, we agree on the top 2 and bottom 2, and coincidentally placed some other songs together.  Our biggest disagreements were with Alien, The Years go By, Inside Outside and Grace like a River.

I decided to give each song points based on position, so My Glorious scored 88 and Stealing Time scored 1.  I then averaged the scores for each album and produced the following graph.  The letters at the bottom represent the seven albums but they are small.  The order, from left to right, is King of Fools, Mezzamorphis, Glo, Audio Lessonover, World Service, Mission Bell, Kingdom of Comfort.

As expected, Glo is the clear leader, with 9 of its 11 songs appearing in the top 27.  Surprisingly, King of Fools outscored World Service - the lower and middle sections of each album scored similarly, but the best songs on King of Fools outscores the best of World Service.  Kingdom of Comfort and Mezzamorphis were neck and neck, while Mission Bell suffered from having no songs in the top 25.  The pre-race outsider, Audio Lessonover, predictably came last, though Alien did manage a top-10 place.

As a final disclaimer, it should be noted that the above album ranking based based on scores for isolated songs, which is not a particularly valid way of ranking albums!

Sitting in the sharing of the feeling

Last night we were talking about prayer - how it works, whether God changes his mind, how we can influence God, how prayer changes God, when to stop praying for a situation, how to pray well.  We came up with lots and lots of questions and very few answers, but I remembered one thing in particular.
One friend said it can be hard to know what words to pray for a situation, and that sometimes all you can do is be with the situation before God, sharing the knowledge of the situation with him.  She was relating this particularly to praying for another person who was suffering.

My friend described this as 'sitting in the sharing of the feeling'.  I love that phrase.  Sitting before God, sharing in yourself what the other person is feeling, being with them, and with God, in the suffering.

Sitting in the sharing of the feeling.

Visual effects in films

I've been the the cinema a few times recently.  Most of the trailers I have seen have been for Summer blockbusters, heavy on action and visual effects.  Films such as Battleship, The Avengers, Prometheus and Men In Black 3.  Although all of these trailers were visually impressive, I'm only interested in seeing one of the films, Prometheus (and that's mostly because it's Ridley Scott, not because the trailer made it look any good).

The problem is that visual effects, cool action scenes and car chases, and massive explosions are no longer impressive.  Remember when Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and everyone was awed by the dinosaurs?  That no longer happens.  We've got to the stage where anything can be put on film.  I'm probably biased, but I think that the turning point was with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy.  The 'unfilmable', apparently, was filmed.  With the development of performance capture for Gollum, the use of Massive technology for armies, and the clever combinations of live action, CGI and miniatures, it became apparent that if you could imagine it, you could film it.

This means that films are no longer impressive simply for their effects and action scenes.  They must actually have decent storylines/characters/concepts as well.  Although the aforementioned films look cool in terms of effects, they just don't look like good films.  They look like the main attraction is the visual effects, and visual effects are now very standard.  Anything can be put on film, which means putting something new on film is no great achievement.  You have to find something new to say or a new story to tell.
Over the last couple of days I have watched the first two Bourne films for the first time (I'm watching the third later today).  I might write a proper post about them later, but one thing that turned me off a bit was the excessive amount of car chases in the first two films.  These chases did little to nothing to advance the plot or tell me anything new, they just looked cool.  But looking cool is nothing special anymore.  Visual effects are becoming more redundant in terms of doing something new.  They can still be useful to describe something or create atmosphere or tell the story, but I think we are past that days when a film could be impressive largely for its effects.

The Hunger Games - part 2

Having seen The Hunger Games again, it’s time for the second post in this series (first post is here).  Here are a few thoughts about the film (SPOILER ALERT).

• It is very re-watchable.  I’ve actually seen it three times now (I intended to see it twice, but ended up going a third time anyway), and it is not boring me.
• The two leads, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, really are excellent.  I spent a lot of one viewing watching Lawrence’s performance – it’s pretty special.
• This story is by no means finished, and it feels it.  Being part one of a trilogy, this is not surprising.  It definitely feels like there is a lot more to come.
• I loved the defiance and subversion at the end, when Katniss and Peeta refuse to kill each other, forcing the Gamemakers to allow two winners, and throughout the Games, as Katniss allies with Rue and then gives her a respectful funeral.
• I love the ambiguity of the relationship between the two leads – this gives a great extra dimension to the film.
• I love Katniss’ character.  I love how she finds it hard to make friends, how she often doesn’t know what to say, how she doesn’t always get jokes.  Brilliant.
• One of the most interesting aspects was the role reversal of the male and female leads – usually it is the male who is the braver, the more heroic, the more reserved, the more determined.  I love that this is flipped in this film.
• I still think the film could have been longer, to incorporate a bit more backstory.
• There is no way this should have been a 12A.  It was reduced from a 15 after cutting 7 seconds of violence, but surely the whole concept (essentially gladiatorial combat for kids) is more disturbing than any particular shots of blood or gore.
• I hope that the books and next two films don’t sell out.  I don’t know what happens, but I hope they manage to keep the integrity of the characters and develop the themes that have been set up.

I plan to read the books sometime this summer.  Parts 3 to 5 of this series will appear then.

The flaw in football

It has been suggested that a significant reason why football is such a popular sport, both in the UK and worldwide, is to do with the fact that it is a very low-scoring sport.  0-0 draws are common.  Anything more than about 4 or 5 goals in a 90-minute match is unusual.  The result of this is that every goal matters very much. A single goal usually changes the feel of the whole match.  Therefore goals give players, spectators or fans very big emotional highs and lows during a match.  In short, football is popular because it is exciting.

This is a good thing, though has the disadvantage that scoreless (and often relatively boring) games are common.  However, I see a more significant problem.

Although football brings the big highs and lows when goals are scored, the fact that it is such a low scoring game (and therefore most goals are very important) means that any mistakes made by officials are more significant than in other sports.  An incorrect penalty or offside decision, or a goal wrongly allowed or disallowed, have a very large impact on the outcome of a match and, in a sport where winning the title, getting into Europe or playoffs, or being relegated often come down to a single point, a single refereeing mistake in a single match is enough to change the fortunes of a team for the entire season.  People say that such things even themselves out over the course of a season.  They do not.  Most leagues have a maximum of about 46 games.  To be relatively sure that such mistakes were evened out, more like 460 games would be needed.

This is not the time to rant about refereeing mistakes, but it should be noted that such mistakes probably have a larger effect on a football match than a match in another sport.  Hence, there is arguably more pressure on football referees and linesmen than on officials in other sports.  Add this that football seems a particularly difficult game to officiate, due to vague rules that are very open to interpretation, and football referees need all the help they can get.

Such help is of two forms.  Firstly, and famously, 'technology' i.e. TV replays, Hawkeye etc.  Football must be the only major sport left not using such things.  If a referee is unsure of a decision such as a penalty appeal or an offside, he or she should be able to check a TV replay.  Arguments that this would slow down the pace of the game are flawed, because the pace is already slowed down by all the arguments and protests that result from decisions that players disagree with.

Secondly, help is required from players, managers and fans.  Players should stop cheating.  Every game I see includes incidents of players going down too easily, cynically fouling each other, etc.  Managers should be honest.  If a manager knows his team have been given a soft penalty, or got away with an offside goal, or whatever, they should have enough integrity to admit their good fortune, rather than denying it or claiming they 'didn't see the incident'.  Without this honesty, complaints about referees mistakes cannot be taken seriously.  Fans have a part to play too.  We, like managers, should acknowledge our good fortune with decisions.  We should campaign for both the use of technology in the sport and for honesty and fairness from players and managers  .And no matter what we think of referees decisions, there is no excuse for the mob mentality of abuse that is directed at referees during games.

I've been thinking more and more recently that football, while entertaining, exciting and popular, is actually not a particularly good sport.  But I think these alterations would significantly improve it.  When I am king of the world, I'll make some changes.

The Hunger Games - part 1

This is something I haven't done before.  I plan to write a series of 5 posts on The Hunger Games.  One now, having seen the film once.  One after seeing it for a second time.  And one after reading each of the three books.  We'll see what happens.

I really liked the film.  It has gone straight to the top of my 'Films of the year' list.  I loved the concept and thought it was really well done.  I was absorbed.  The film fed my excitement for new young actors.  It's the second thing I've seen Josh Hutcherson in and, while he wasn't as mindblowing as he is in Bridge to Terabithia, he was still good.  I didn't get to see Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, but this alone has convinced me that she's good.
I was left a bit disappointed by the length of the film - I thought it could have been longer.  Yes, I know it is already 140 minutes, but since when have I been bothered by long films?  I wanted more backstory about District 12 and Katniss' home and family life.  And I wanted more detail on the buildup to the Games and how all the sponsorship worked.  But in spite of this, I enjoyed the film and immediately ordered the books when I got home.

Possibly the most significant indication of how much I liked the film is that I want to see it again.  This only happens with films I really like.

Kony 2012

Over the last couple of weeks, this video has been very popular online, and has been posted countless times on Facebook and Twitter.  I posted it myself.

The idea behind the video is to make Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Africa, famous.  He has abducted thousands of children and turned them into soldiers and sex slaves, and is the number 1 most wanted person in the world for crimes against humanity.  Western countries are reluctant to try to stop him because he is not a financial or military threat to Western countries.
The charity behind the video, Invisible Children, believe that part of the problem is that Kony isn't a household name like Saddam Hussein or Col. Gadaffi, and therefore wants to make Kony famous so that Western populations will pressurize governments to stop him.

The video has been received variably.  Some have got behind the idea and have joined the plan to publicise Kony 2012 on a large scale in April.  Others have been suspicious and critical of various things.  Some have criticised the misrepresentation of the scale and the location of the LRA.  Some have asked about the lack of coverage of the corruption in the Ugandan government.  Some have pointed out that US advisers have already been sent to help.  Some have tried to discuss the very nature of 'justice' and 'evil'.  These people miss the point.
The point is that Invisible Children have noticed that what the LRA are doing is wrong and they should be stopped.  Because Western governments are reluctant to get involved, Invisible Children have decided to go to the public to try to raise awareness that way.  They are using social media to spread the message, which makes quite a lot of sense.  Regardless of the details of Kony's crimes or who else is involved, he is still top of the International Criminal Court's most wanted list.  He is someone who should be brought to justice and someone who people should know about.  Simple as that.

If, and that's a big if, Invisible Children's plan works, and nations pressurise governments into acting before the end of 2012, that would be a massive deal.  It would mean that because of public and social media pressure, governments acted.  Forget votes and referendums and petitions for a minute.  If this works for Kony, it could work for other situations too.  I'm not saying I think it will work, but I love that it's a fresh idea, a new way of doing things.

It doesn't really matter about the details.  The point is that Kony should be stopped, and people should know about him.  That's why I've shared the video.

Dennis

Dennis are the best new band I have discovered.  Based in Northeast England, their style is somewhere near the indie/folk/ska intersection.  They are an 8-piece band, with the standard 5-piece set up, plus trombone, trumpet and euphonium (and including a total of seven vocalists).  Then they occasionally crack out a banjo, tenor horn, and a myriad of percussion instruments (cowbells, triangles, a clapper, a gong(!), egg shakers, a hooter).
Their songs are very well written, all eight of them are excellent musicians, and they are great live performers.  I highly commend them.  Have a look at the Facebook page - the Music tab has two songs.  'Like' the page to get details of gigs, recordings etc.

Cyclists

I love cyclists, because I love cycling.  I love the speed down the hills, the challenge up the hills, the feeling of being miles from home and the only way to get back being me and my bike.  I love on road, off road, mountain biking.  I love cycling alone or with other people.  I love how it is faster than walking and more versatile than driving.  I love how it can keep me fit and save the planet.  I respect people who cycle, and love that they do it, but I sometimes also despair.



When I see a cyclist in the middle of the lane instead of on the left, or when I see a cyclist without a helmet, or ignoring a red light, I understand why drivers get annoyed by cyclists.  I love cycling, but even I get annoyed when I see (or sometimes don't see until nearly too late) a cyclist without proper lighting.  Over the last couple of months this has happened a lot.  As a driver, I am quite happy to slow down for a while and sit behind a cyclist to give them space.  I will overtake giving them plenty of room.  But I get infuriated when they seem to think themselves invulnerable and above the law.

So if you cycle, thank you.  Please keep cycling.  But please don't annoy drivers by being almost invisible and by ignoring things like red lights and rights of way.  If we want drivers to respect our right to cycle, we need to show that we can abide by the rules just like everyone else.

The genius of Rowling

A number of times, I have been asked for my wisdom on the appropriateness of the Harry Potter books for teenagers and children of varying ages.

I was asked again last week, and had a bit more of a think, and I spotted something brilliant which I hadn't thought of before.

When asked about the appropriateness of the books for teenagers and children, my initial reaction is that they are too dark for young teens and below.  Even the first couple of books, often considered more lighthearted, contain quite disturbing images, such as Quirrell/Voldemort, mandrakes, petrification.  However, I have noticed that I have found these, and other images (e.g. inferi, 'flesh, blood and bone', the Longbottoms, the baby-headed death eater, Katie's cursed necklace) more disturbing as I have got older.  I've also noticed that not everyone finds such things particularly disturbing.

I think this is because Rowling writes a very good balance between detailed description and leaving things open to the imagination of the reader.  This means that younger, less mature, readers, may not imagine these images so graphically as older readers.  Of course, younger readers may also have a more active imagination than older readers.  But the point is that, although Rowling famously describes her world in great detail, she leaves the perfect amount of room for imagination.  I find that the majority of fantasy authors swing either one way or the other - most actually sacrifice the detail of the world for the sake of imagination.  While this would work for many genres, it doesn't work for fantasy.

The thing I love about reading fantasy is that only half the point is what actually happens in the book.  That's what most genres do - tell a story about some characters - but that's only half of the fantasy genre.  Fantasy authors, by the nature of what they do, describe another world in which their stories take place.  They are true creators, inventing whole new kingdoms, cultures, histories, magic systems, even languages.

Many fantasy authors seem to sacrifice some of the detail of describing the world for the sake of readers' imagination.  They leave me enjoying the story but frustrated by my lack of knowledge of the world.  Such authors include Joe Abercrombie, Raymond Feist, David Gemmell, Ursula Le Guin, JRR Tolkein, and Guy Gavriel Kay.  A few authors sacrifice the imagination for the sake of lots of detail.  They leave me feeling stifled and dictated to.  Examples are Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson, George Martin.  Not that any of these writers are bad - I enjoy them all.  Not that they are, for this reason, necessarily worse than Rowling.  But Rowling treads the line between these two tendencies perfectly (although at the same time she is a bit of an exception to the fantasy genre because her stories take place in this world).

Rowling's world is described in considerable detail, but much space is left for imagination, and many things are left unexplained.  This, of course, gives rise to fan discussions and debates and, fairly uniquely, a set of articles published here.  Some of these (ok, all of them) are obviously the product of obsessive fandom (in which I unashamedly include myself).  But many simply enthusiastically expand on and attempt to fill in the gaps in Rowlings description.

These gaps are not large enough to leave me feeling short-changed by the books.  Because the scope of the world she creates is large, the books can incorporate lots of detail to keep me satisfied, while still leaving much information out and open to imagination and theorising.

Other authors I have read who write on similar or greater scales include George Martin, Steven Erikson, and Robert Jordan.  Martin and Jordan describe their worlds in great detail, but leave me feeling a little overawed by the complexity.  This is not a bad thing (in fact I love it), just a contrast to Rowling.  Erikson, who I have recently started reading, seems similar to Martin and Jordan.

Rowling does not leave me feeling swamped with complexities (even though the books are detailed).  I think this is because her books are not on as large a scale as Martin, Jordan and Erikson.  But at the same time, she does not leave me feeling frustrated by the lack of information.

This way that Rowling writes, with a balance between detail and gaps, means that her books are very accessible, and hence very popular.  They are not as overwhelmingly and intimidatingly detailed as some fantasy books.  They are more detailed than others, and therefore not frustratingly incomplete.  They have the advantage of being set in this world, and therefore have the familiarity that is so comforting to readers new to the genre.  One facet of this balance is that the darker elements of the story are, to an extent, left open to the readers imagination.  This widens the span of ages who can access the books on their own level - I would suggest that younger readers might gloss over the brutality of some images in the books.

I'm surprised I hadn't thought about this in detail before.  But I'm glad I thought about it now.  The combination of the scale of the books, the amount of detail included and the amount of detail left out is clearly very popular.  Rowling is a bit of a genius when it comes to making her stories accessible.

Drinks and food

This is a post that has been brewing for many months.

When out at a social gathering (bar/pub/restaurant etc), people are generally fairly happy to have drinks bought for them by someone else.  However, when if comes to buying food, people are rarely happy to let someone else buy for them.
What are the reasons for this difference?  Some thoughts...

• Buying someone else a drink is often a matter of convenience - only one person goes to the bar rather than several.
• There is an assumption that someone else will get the next round, so it evens out by the end of the night.
• People basically don't like receiving something for free, no strings attached.
• Food costs more than drinks, so people might think they 'owe' someone more.

Is it as simple as this?

Creating and consuming

In the February issue of Empire, Andrew Stanton, director of Wall-E, Finding Nemo and the upcoming John Carter, was reported to have been asked who he made the film (John Carter) for.  His response?
"That's the worst way to make a movie.  I do not listen to The Beatles because I think they know what I want; I listen to them because I want to know what they like.  It's not designed from the outside.  I've been asked that question for 20 years at Pixar, and I've given the same answer: we do not think of who the audience is.  That's the worst way to make a movie."

I've been thinking about this a bit over the last week or so.  I think I partly agree and partly disagree with it.  I agree that asking what the audience wants is a bad way to make a film.  Film-makers should make films they want to make, not films they think people want to see.  This is the same for other forms of entertainment - plays, books, music etc.  The creator should just create.

However, I'm not so sure about what he says about the reasons for listening to music.  It seems like he is implying that listening to The Beatles because you think they know what you want (i.e. you think you will like it) is not as valid a reason as listening to find out what the artist likes. I disagree.  I think the creator should just create, but the recipient/fan can listen for either reason, equally validly.  Whether it is music, films, books or whatever, there is nothing wrong with consuming the entertainment because you enjoy it.

Reasons for creating vs reasons for consuming.  Creating should be for creation's sake, not to pander to the public's whims and wishes.  But consuming 'because I think they know what I like' is just as valid as consuming 'to find out what they like'.

I think.  Or am I wrong about this?