politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s not inconceivable that in a year’s time there’ll be a

Options
1235

Comments

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    edited January 2016
    Mr. Price, same Bat time, same Bat channel ;)

    Mr. Simon, a while I did say the PLP should take their voting lead from someone who isn't an apologist for terrorism.

    Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, that is a good one.

    Mr. 30, and Heidi looked much better in a red sweater than Corbyn ever could ;)
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    Wanderer said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: Most senior resignation so far. Shadow Cabinet level resignation. Last week's were Shadow Junior Ministers. Will have to actually replace...

    @DPJHodges: With Catherine McKinnell's resignation Labour's reshuffle has now officially entered its second week.

    The words "Here we.. here we.. here we fucking go" spring to mind.
    What a pie....
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    What I don't get about old Corbyn is why he spends his limited political capital on UND. At the end of the day, we won't have a nuclear war any time soon, so scrapping it makes sod all difference to the creation of a new socialist dawn in Britain. He be better putting his efforts into climate change or renationalisation or something like that.

    Mr Die, The sagacious Southam Observer, gent of this parish, has explained this as Corbyn wanting to change the Labour Party to ensure that his brand of socialists have control for the foreseeable future. It has stuff all to do with the voters or government let alone winning elections.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Now That's What I Call Leadership!
    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    I know that, you know that, most Labour MPs seem to know that. But they don't seem able to take the only logical step and that is getting rid of him.

    We cannot have a Parliament without a viable opposition.
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dee, one of my earliest film memories is of Labyrinth. Bowie made a very good goblin prince.

    For a teenage me, Jennifer Connelly in that movie was far more memorable.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @chrisdeerin: You're not 'helping the party' by staying in the shadow cab. You're enabling - culpable in - its suffocation. Or you're a tragic careerist.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    edited January 2016
    Scott_P said:

    @chrisdeerin: You're not 'helping the party' by staying in the shadow cab. You're enabling - culpable in - its suffocation. Or you're a tragic careerist.

    Andy Burnham knows where his bread is buttered.

    Reek serves well.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Janacek gives us all hope. Produced his best works in his sixties and seventies.
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Tell that to Verdi & Richard Strauss & Bruckner. Though to be fair Sibelius almost composed nothing for last 25 years of his life.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Dair, not unlike Jet from Gladiators, she certainly helped my appreciation of women to develop.

    Corbyn running away from the PLP is like Pompey fleeing Caesar. Except that Pompey had some talent. And wasn't an apologist for barbarians.
  • tyson
    tyson Posts: 6,122
    Johny Marr bought me a pint on New Years Eve at the Bleeding Wolf in Hale Manchester on New Years Eve- I think in 1985. He was just a really nice bloke- and enjoyed a chat.

    But; re the Smiths- Morrissey's vocals and lyrics are quite wonderful too. Though you are right- Marr's riffs are stunning.

    I went to a Peter Hook doing the entire Joy Division back catalogue at a gig in December in Florence and happily moshed away for a few hours- you're never too old- and nearly caught his t- shirt at the end. He aimed it right at me, but some Italian grabbed it out of my hands.

    I love to listen to Bach's Six Suites on Sunday mornings too.
    Cyclefree said:

    SimonStClare said:

    @Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]

    Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’

    Ah yes, but Johnny Marr's guitar playing and composing is awesome - and that's why you listen to the Smiths (well, why I do).

    I like both Bowie - RIP - and Bach. Bach wrote some of the sublimest music there is. Playing his piano music (though he wrote for the harpsichord, of course) is one of the great pleasures of life.

    Bowie was the soundtrack to my growing up years. I remember seeing Roeg's "The Man who Fell to Earth" at the late night film club in Bristol.... Happy days.

    And Bohemian Rhapsody is a great song.


  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Maomentum_: Some advice to PLP: It's time. It's kill or be killed.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited January 2016
    I'm a big Alice Cooper fan. Nothing will persuade me that his post 30s stuff is good bar the odd tune. Some of his post rehab stuff is very witty, but that's fanland stuff.

    Was fortunate enough to be around during his heyday.
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:

    @chrisdeerin: You're not 'helping the party' by staying in the shadow cab. You're enabling - culpable in - its suffocation. Or you're a tragic careerist.

    Andy Burnham knows where his bread is buttered.

    Reek serves well.
    If Labour comes to its senses, kicks Corbyn out and elects a moderate in his place, why would that new person keep Burnham on? He's shackled himself to a corpse and given it cover.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Tissue_Price said:

    Good of McKinnell to wait until Thornberry was safely ensconced in another job.

    Could one resignation a week be the new anti-Corbyn strategy?

    If there's one a week going to resign he's Donald Ducked - it will be the neverending reshuffle. He doesn't have enough MPs loyal to him to fill up all the Shad Cab posts, let alone the juniors.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Pulpstar, it's not Reek if it's by choice.
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    A bit like the old chairman (sorry, Hattie) of the party before Tony Blair more-or-less abolished the role?
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    oxfordsimon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    ...

    We cannot have a Parliament without a viable opposition.
    Of course we can, we have in the past and other countries have also had very successful governments from one party for a long period. Whether it is a good idea is another matter but parliamentary democracy will not stop because the second largest party is unelectable.
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    edited January 2016
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dair, not unlike Jet from Gladiators, she certainly helped my appreciation of women to develop.

    Corbyn running away from the PLP is like Pompey fleeing Caesar. Except that Pompey had some talent. And wasn't an apologist for barbarians.

    When at university, our Monday night pub quiz team usually called ourselves "Isn't Jet Lovely", although on occasion we did use "Isn't Beth (Brennan from neighbours) Lovely".

    Would probably get expelled today for such misogynist language!
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Dair, was she played by Natalie Imbruglia?

    Good call.
  • tyson
    tyson Posts: 6,122
    I agree with you.... For me it would be a toss up between Bach or Miles Davis if I could only have access to one artist. And music simply stimulates my senses more than looking at a painting. I can never read a book twice- but Bach, or Miles I can listen to all day long, over and over again. They have both contributed more than any other artist to my overall well being and quality of life.
    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I really must buy the Batman Adam West boxset.

    I loved that show. When GMTV went on strike, they showed that instead, and the ratings went up.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Price, same Bat time, same Bat channel ;)

    Mr. Simon, a while I did say the PLP should take their voting lead from someone who isn't an apologist for terrorism.

    Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, that is a good one.

    Mr. 30, and Heidi looked much better in a red sweater than Corbyn ever could ;)

  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Chump pie?
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Wanderer said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: Most senior resignation so far. Shadow Cabinet level resignation. Last week's were Shadow Junior Ministers. Will have to actually replace...

    @DPJHodges: With Catherine McKinnell's resignation Labour's reshuffle has now officially entered its second week.

    The words "Here we.. here we.. here we fucking go" spring to mind.
    What a pie....
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dair, was she played by Natalie Imbruglia?

    Good call.

    Indeed she was. And is still quite lovely today.
  • MaxPB
    MaxPB Posts: 40,327
    Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.

    Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Me too. If I had to bring one composer's oeuvre onto that desert island it would be Bach's.

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    tyson said:

    I agree with you.... For me it would be a toss up between Bach or Miles Davis if I could only have access to one artist. And music simply stimulates my senses more than looking at a painting. I can never read a book twice- but Bach, or Miles I can listen to all day long, over and over again. They have both contributed more than any other artist to my overall well being and quality of life.

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Good morning all. Bach is the best music for software developers, don't even argue as you would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    dr_spyn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Tell that to Verdi & Richard Strauss & Bruckner. Though to be fair Sibelius almost composed nothing for last 25 years of his life.
    And Titian.
  • CD13
    CD13 Posts: 6,386
    "The 19 suspects include 14 men from Morocco and Algeria. Ten of the suspects are asylum seekers, nine of whom arrived in Germany after September 2015.

    The other nine are possibly in Germany illegally, the interior ministry says."

    It's always the cover-up. It's taken 11 days for the truth to trickle out. It doesn't mean that all asylum seekers are criminals, but it does mean you cannot trust the Authorities to be even-handed. A sort of reverse-racism applies.

    Bowie? One or two nice tunes.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    HurstLlama said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    ...

    We cannot have a Parliament without a viable opposition.
    Of course we can, we have in the past and other countries have also had very successful governments from one party for a long period. Whether it is a good idea is another matter but parliamentary democracy will not stop because the second largest party is unelectable.
    Well we can, yes. But it is not good for our version of democracy.

    It is not that Labour is currently unelectable that is the problem IMHO, it is the fact that they have ceased to function as a party. When the leader and the MPs are so much at odd, there is no parliamentary party - and that is not something that should continue for long.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    edited January 2016
    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
    Raphael, Mozart, Shakespeare.

    (Edit: or...Cezanne, Bach, Joyce)
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    What I don't get about old Corbyn is why he spends his limited political capital on UND. At the end of the day, we won't have a nuclear war any time soon, so scrapping it makes sod all difference to the creation of a new socialist dawn in Britain. He be better putting his efforts into climate change or renationalisation or something like that.

    Short-term it's a great wedge issue between him and the centre, with him on the side the membership is on.

    If he makes it to an election it's a policy that actually saves money, whereas with the other thinhs you mention people are going to want to know how it's going to be paid for.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Beethoven? Wrote his first symphony at the age of 30 and his 9th, his best and for, my money, one of the finest symphonies ever composed, in his fifties.
  • tyson
    tyson Posts: 6,122
    You are probably right about Bach not pushing boundaries- I'm not knowledgeable enough about classical music. But he is wonderful to listen too and passes serenely many, many lovely hours with calmness and pleasure.
    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    HurstLlama said:

    Just catching up: on the composers issue there is a story about Bach which I would like to believe is true.

    Some years ago NASA were preparing a very long distance space probe and, in case it was picked up by alien life forms, included in it various items which were designed to show what human civilisation was about and what it had achieved. There was much discussion as to what should be included and one of the team suggested digital recordings of some of Bach's best works. The old team leader vetoed the idea saying, "We don't want to show off."

    (snip)

    It was the Voyagers' golden record

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

    Unfortunately for your story, it contains three sections by Bach:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_Voyager_Golden_Record
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Anyway, it's time for me to leave.

    Inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Morris Dancer shall return. Same Morris time, same Morris channel.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
    No, no - I won't have that. Bach is the musician from whom all other musicians after him learnt. Without him we would not have had Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin.

  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    In other news...

    @JustineT: I am absolutely delighted to be appointed Queen's Counsel
    https://t.co/fELq2V81kf
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    edited January 2016
    CD13 said:

    "The 19 suspects include 14 men from Morocco and Algeria. Ten of the suspects are asylum seekers, nine of whom arrived in Germany after September 2015.

    The other nine are possibly in Germany illegally, the interior ministry says."

    It's always the cover-up. It's taken 11 days for the truth to trickle out. It doesn't mean that all asylum seekers are criminals, but it does mean you cannot trust the Authorities to be even-handed. A sort of reverse-racism applies.

    Bowie? One or two nice tunes.

    It was really disingenuous when they said 19 suspects were asylum seekers and left it at that. The BBC were spinning that look look look that means only about half are migrants. When the reality will be that all are. Also, there is no way 500+ crimes were committed by ~30 people.
  • MTimT
    MTimT Posts: 7,034
    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
    On that basis, Eno should get a mention.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm in the Top 100 Best XYZ compilation album segment. Regularly listen to around 500 classical pieces and loads of lute/zither stuff - but couldn't say what opus do da they are beyond a handful.

    Same goes for most of the rest of my collection - another 2000 tracks. Classical music has a real snob/inverted snob problem which is a real shame.
    tyson said:

    I agree with you.... For me it would be a toss up between Bach or Miles Davis if I could only have access to one artist. And music simply stimulates my senses more than looking at a painting. I can never read a book twice- but Bach, or Miles I can listen to all day long, over and over again. They have both contributed more than any other artist to my overall well being and quality of life.

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    It's not quite that automatic. IIRC, discretion for appointing the LotO lies with the Speaker, though it's not been needed for practical purposes since WWII (when had someone not been nominated for it from the main parties, it'd have fallen by default to a Communist, I think).

    Were there two Labour parties, one with a slightly larger number of MPs but the other with the electoral mandate, the legacy party machine and so on, it'd be an interesting call as to who to recognise. The easiest option would be to go with the numbers (if not, at what point do you make the call to switch if there's a subsequent but steady trickle of MPs defecting?) but if there are good arguments against it, Bercow could decide to continue to recognise Corbyn.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    MaxPB said:

    Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.

    Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.

    Getting people to opt-in rather than opting-out of political levies is the correct thing to do. No-one should stumble into making such contributions without actively consenting.

    And if Labour and the unions can't find enough people to do that, why should the taxpayer pick up the bill?

    I think the scale of their projected shortfall is probably an exaggeration done for maximum media impact - but if you can't win the battle of ideas with your own supporters, you don't have an automatic right to exist as a political party.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    oxfordsimon said:

    HurstLlama said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    ...

    We cannot have a Parliament without a viable opposition.
    Of course we can, we have in the past and other countries have also had very successful governments from one party for a long period. Whether it is a good idea is another matter but parliamentary democracy will not stop because the second largest party is unelectable.
    Well we can, yes. But it is not good for our version of democracy.

    It is not that Labour is currently unelectable that is the problem IMHO, it is the fact that they have ceased to function as a party. When the leader and the MPs are so much at odd, there is no parliamentary party - and that is not something that should continue for long.
    Our system is set up to be adversarial. It will function without a coherent Opposition but it won't function well.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    edited January 2016
    MaxPB said:

    Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.

    Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.

    It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?

    I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    Owen Smith was telling us yesterday (Pienaar) that decision-making should be left to the experts as we, dear listener, were not up to the job of understanding the complexities of policy-making.

    Jezza meanwhile wants a greater input from the membership.

    Well it already has ended in tears...
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    jayfdee said:

    I grew up with Bowie, and Ziggy, he was a part of my university days,and will be sadly missed.
    RIP

    In 2012 I was a volunteer Gamesmaker at the Olympics and was stationed in a control room overlooking the Podium, The Bowie classic, Heroes was played at every medal presentation, after watching about 100 presentations, this classic lost some of its appeal.

    [snip].

    Bowie turned down the opportunity to sing it live at the opening ceremony as the British athletes came into the stadium, which really would have been something of a moment.
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    Plato_Says said:

    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

    Gotham really is a fantastic show.

    And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    As a Renaissance art scholar passim, I find the choice too massive to pick anyone from the pack.

    I do love the Italian and Dutch artists the most.
    Cyclefree said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Tell that to Verdi & Richard Strauss & Bruckner. Though to be fair Sibelius almost composed nothing for last 25 years of his life.
    And Titian.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Cyclefree said:

    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
    No, no - I won't have that. Bach is the musician from whom all other musicians after him learnt. Without him we would not have had Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin.


    Not Brook but Ocean should be his name.
    - Ludwig Van Beethoven ("Bach" is the German word for "brook")

    Bach is Bach, as God is God.
    - Hector Berlioz

    a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity
    - Claude Debussy

    Bach is the beginning and end of all music.
    - Max Reger

    I had no idea of the historical evolution of the civilized world's music and had not realized that all modern music owes everything to Bach.
    - Niccolai Rimsky-Korsakov

    Music owes as much to Bach as religion to its founder.
    - Robert Schumann

    Study Bach. There you will find everything.
    - Johannes Brahms

    Bach is a colossus of Rhodes, beneath whom all musicians pass and will continue to pass. He has said all there is to say. If all the music written since Bach's time should be lost, it could be reconstructed on the foundation which Bach laid.
    - Charles Gounod

    Bach is the supreme genius of music... This man, who knows everything and feels everything, cannot write one note, however unimportant it may appear, which is anything but transcendent. He has reached the heart of every noble thought, and has done it in the most perfect way.
    - Pablo Casals

  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    Cyclefree said:

    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I think it comes down to authenticity and sincerity, not to mention the profundity of their creations.

    Let's face it, almost all pop icons have an army of real musicians and technical wizards behind them to take their paltry tinkerings, and make something slightly more tuneful of them, while the "artist" gets on with the real business of prancing round the stage in outlandish gear. The noise is really just an accompaniment to this vulgar display...

    Whereas Bach, virtually unknown beyond a 30-mile radius in his own lifetime, gazed upon the wonder of Nature, committed his thoughts to paper, and simply offered it all up to his God...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nyzGR3tUE

    If I had an award to give for the greatest artist, of any type, ever to have lived, I would give it to Bach ahead of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, whoever. But I just love music really. Not everyone feels the same, of course.
    Except that Bach wasn't all that innovative. If we are going to reach for the top-most accolades then I think that you have to ask the nominees not only to come close to perfecting the existing forms of their art but also point the way forward to, or open up, new forms of it.
    No, no - I won't have that. Bach is the musician from whom all other musicians after him learnt. Without him we would not have had Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin.

    I prefer a blend of Mozart and Bach, a sort of a "Mach" piece.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    JosiasJessop said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Just catching up: on the composers issue there is a story about Bach which I would like to believe is true.

    Some years ago NASA were preparing a very long distance space probe and, in case it was picked up by alien life forms, included in it various items which were designed to show what human civilisation was about and what it had achieved. There was much discussion as to what should be included and one of the team suggested digital recordings of some of Bach's best works. The old team leader vetoed the idea saying, "We don't want to show off."

    (snip)

    It was the Voyagers' golden record

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

    Unfortunately for your story, it contains three sections by Bach:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_Voyager_Golden_Record
    Gee, thanks, Mr. Jessop. I did say I would have liked the story to be true, and now, thanks to you I know it is not. Another happy illusion, albeit a very small one, shattered and at my age I don't have many left.

    I think I'll go now and spend a few hours continuing to read up on the Black Death.
  • kle4
    kle4 Posts: 99,113
    Dair said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

    Gotham really is a fantastic show.

    And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
    I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
  • tyson
    tyson Posts: 6,122
    I find Titian to be the most interesting of all the Renaissance painters- his portraits are astonishing. Raphael makes me want to convert to catholicism mind, but I have shifted to Titian more recently who effects me more viscerally rather than Raphael's emotional effect. Titian's life story is the most remarkable of any painter too- he had a good innings.
    Cyclefree said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I'd put Bowie slightly ahead of Elton. A few good albums 40yrs ago. The rest is filler or worse unless you're a fan.

    matt said:

    I quite like Bowie: I saw him play live more than one (Brixton Academy comes to mind) and when he hit the peaks, he was very good. The Berlin-era work for example. But there was an awful lot, perhaps disproportionate amount, of meh. On any rational judgement, the rush to put him in the Pantheon is premature: time changes views and allows distance (look at all the great Victorian novelists who were applauded in their time...). I do think that this acclamation at least partially reflects our own views of youth and mortality.

    So I am as one with Richard Nabavi, ignoring his judiciary-eque, "tell me about Paul Gascoigne..." moment.

    Almost everyone produces their best work in their 20s/30s artistically speaking. Tbh you're on borrowed time after your 27th or so birthday normally.
    Tell that to Verdi & Richard Strauss & Bruckner. Though to be fair Sibelius almost composed nothing for last 25 years of his life.
    And Titian.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    edited January 2016
    Bloody immigrants not integrating...it is like the Islamic version of the Costa del Sol, without the sea. Lets hope they don't come back.

    The town nicknamed 'Little London' at the heart of Islamic State's war

    Manbij, west of Isil's de facto capital Raqqa, has been overrun with British Isil fighters and their families

    “The foreigners came and invaded our town, telling us what we can say, what we can wear, what we can eat."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12091228/The-town-nicknamed-Little-London-at-the-heart-of-Islamic-States-war.html

  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited January 2016
    There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    Cyclefree said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Just catching up: on the composers issue there is a story about Bach which I would like to believe is true.

    Some years ago NASA were preparing a very long distance space probe and, in case it was picked up by alien life forms, included in it various items which were designed to show what human civilisation was about and what it had achieved. There was much discussion as to what should be included and one of the team suggested digital recordings of some of Bach's best works. The old team leader vetoed the idea saying, "We don't want to show off."

    On the EU discussion, it is a shame that a very valid point was lost amongst personal insults and whether Turkey will ever join the EU. A vote to remain is not a vote for the status quo. As anyone who even vaguely follows what is going on will have realised is that the EU is going to change in the near future. How it will change and whether such changes will be in the UK's interest we cannot know. At least we cannot know with anymore certainty that what leaving would mean.

    Remain and Leave both involve taking a leap into the unknown.

    Absolutely right. But unless Leave make that point clearly - that Remain is not a vote for the status quo but a vote for further integration in an institution where we are regularly - and will continue to be - outvoted, even on matters of vital national interest - it will look as if Leave is the step into the dark and Remain the vote for things as they are now.

    And if that is how the referendum is perceived, Remain will win, probably comfortably.

    IMHO that's exactly what Leave should do: turn the tables on Remain and highlight the uncertainty and lack of a "plan" for the UK if we Remain.

    That involves rifling through all EU announcements about future development of the Union and our history of obtaining opt-outs and concessions (only for them to turn out to be worthless - like the eurozone bailout and our nothing-for-something rebate surrender) and counterattacking with them remorselessly.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Lord Falconer on DP defending the indefensible. He should go on R5 Fighting Talk programme. Principles? none other than "my party right or wrong".
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).

    I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.

    And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I didn't like Gotham on first watch. Jim's partner just annoyed me too much. On second go, I found it much more rounded and less cartoonish/boring.

    I've got S7 Vampire Diaries and The Affair S2 on the blocks. Given up on Supernatural completely, S9 was poor, S10 awful. No interest in S11.

    Looks like Person of Interest is on final run next too.
    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

    Gotham really is a fantastic show.

    And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
    I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
  • tyson
    tyson Posts: 6,122
    I think Labour have to resort to comedy to topple the absurd Islingtonistas that have taken over the party- Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone and Thornberry back up by the equally absurd momentum. They are not going to last the year.
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    Owen Smith was telling us yesterday (Pienaar) that decision-making should be left to the experts as we, dear listener, were not up to the job of understanding the complexities of policy-making.

    Jezza meanwhile wants a greater input from the membership.

    Well it already has ended in tears...
  • MarqueeMark
    MarqueeMark Posts: 55,459
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Lord Falconer on DP defending the indefensible. He should go on R5 Fighting Talk programme. Principles? none other than "my party right or wrong".

    I can only think that Falconer is there to finally deliver the coup de grace to Corbyn, from within the Cabinet. Now is not yet that time, so he just has to stay put, sounding like a total cock whilst he awaits instructions....
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    My mum played all those at top volume every day and I still really like them, both for the nostalgia and because I absorbed her tastes when little.

    I read a report ages ago that showed a link between our teenage years and our favourite music. It's a formative psychological period when we break away from our parents music choices and embed our own. It's certainly true of my preferences.
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).

  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    tyson said:

    I think Labour have to resort to comedy to topple the absurd Islingtonistas that have taken over the party- Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone and Thornberry back up by the equally absurd momentum. They are not going to last the year.

    Part of me is enjoying the destruction of a party which I have never supported and never will. But the realist within me knows that we need a centre left party that can command popular support.

    Labour has been that in the past and probably will be that in the future. However the path to that future is not yet clear.

    With each week, the Corbyn/Momentum agenda gets more and more entrenched into the structures of the Labour Party. And that will be difficult to undo - particular given the nature of the current membership.
  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,867
    tyson said:

    I think Labour have to resort to comedy to topple the absurd Islingtonistas that have taken over the party- Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone and Thornberry back up by the equally absurd momentum. They are not going to last the year.

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    Owen Smith was telling us yesterday (Pienaar) that decision-making should be left to the experts as we, dear listener, were not up to the job of understanding the complexities of policy-making.

    Jezza meanwhile wants a greater input from the membership.

    Well it already has ended in tears...
    There's a crunch coming on all this. And it will be wearing a union boiler suit.

    I've covered myself across a range of alternative Labour leaders, but intend to spread a little wider in coming weeks. I'm weak on alternative Lefties.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    Plato_Says said:

    I didn't like Gotham on first watch. Jim's partner just annoyed me too much. On second go, I found it much more rounded and less cartoonish/boring.

    I've got S7 Vampire Diaries and The Affair S2 on the blocks. Given up on Supernatural completely, S9 was poor, S10 awful. No interest in S11.

    Looks like Person of Interest is on final run next too.

    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

    Gotham really is a fantastic show.

    And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
    I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
    I watched Season One of Gotham and was pretty disappointed. The plot line really all over the place and not in a good intriguing way. Was Season Two any better?
  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,867
    Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    rottenborough said:

    tyson said:

    I think Labour have to resort to comedy to topple the absurd Islingtonistas that have taken over the party- Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Livingstone and Thornberry back up by the equally absurd momentum. They are not going to last the year.

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeChurcher: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn to avoid confrontation with MPs by not addressing tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetng.

    He isn't interested in the PLP - he only represents (and leads) the membership who gave him his massive swinging mandate.

    I do wonder whether Frank Field was onto something when he suggested letting Corbyn be leader of the wider party and for MPs to elect someone to actually lead them as a parliamentary force.

    Corbyn could then swan around all his hard left groups feeling smug - and the rest of us could get on with the real world
    That's a split in all but name.

    But in any case we have a Parliamentary democracy. And the leader of the opposition is the one who commands the second largest group of MPs in the House of Commons. So if he's not interested in the Parliamentary party, we - all of us, not just Labour - have a bit of a problem.

    It simply is not tenable to have a Leader of the Opposition who does not command the support of his MPs whatever support he may have amongst members.

    Owen Smith was telling us yesterday (Pienaar) that decision-making should be left to the experts as we, dear listener, were not up to the job of understanding the complexities of policy-making.

    Jezza meanwhile wants a greater input from the membership.

    Well it already has ended in tears...
    There's a crunch coming on all this. And it will be wearing a union boiler suit.

    I've covered myself across a range of alternative Labour leaders, but intend to spread a little wider in coming weeks. I'm weak on alternative Lefties.
    The unions will only act when a clear alternative emerges.

    At the moment, the current leadership can point to an unexpected good bye-election win and a very mixed set of council results. Nothing there is fatal.

    I think we are not going to see the crunch point until after the May elections. Khan winning London would bolster the current leadership - but coming third in Scotland, losing control of Wales and seeing a significant net loss of council seats nationwide might be enough. But I am not certain.

    However if it does, Watson may well be the union-driven choice.
  • watford30
    watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited January 2016
    MarqueeMark said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Lord Falconer on DP defending the indefensible. He should go on R5 Fighting Talk programme. Principles? none other than "my party right or wrong".

    I can only think that Falconer is there to finally deliver the coup de grace to Corbyn, from within the Cabinet. Now is not yet that time, so he just has to stay put, sounding like a total cock whilst he awaits instructions....
    Falconer's as toothless as the others who don't sit within Corbyn's inner circle of trusted lieutenants. Even Watson's supposed powers are weakening by the day.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'd give Gotham S1 another try, after about E5 it makes more sense. S2 is better.

    I'm bored stiff by Agents of Shield and haven't watched the last season at all. I've Teen Wolf S3 and S4 to catch up on.
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I didn't like Gotham on first watch. Jim's partner just annoyed me too much. On second go, I found it much more rounded and less cartoonish/boring.

    I've got S7 Vampire Diaries and The Affair S2 on the blocks. Given up on Supernatural completely, S9 was poor, S10 awful. No interest in S11.

    Looks like Person of Interest is on final run next too.

    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Is that S2 or S3? Penguin is fabulous. What superb casting.

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.

    Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.

    Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).

    Gotham really is a fantastic show.

    And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
    I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
    I watched Season One of Gotham and was pretty disappointed. The plot line really all over the place and not in a good intriguing way. Was Season Two any better?
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I suggested the PLP should appoint their own leader ages ago, but thought it'd never happen. Doesn't look so outlandish now.
    rottenborough said:

    Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.

  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Michael Crick
    Corbyn complains of Nick Robinson's "hypothetical question". He should remember that life in Opposition is all about hypothetical questions
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    HurstLlama said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Just catching up: on the composers issue there is a story about Bach which I would like to believe is true.

    Some years ago NASA were preparing a very long distance space probe and, in case it was picked up by alien life forms, included in it various items which were designed to show what human civilisation was about and what it had achieved. There was much discussion as to what should be included and one of the team suggested digital recordings of some of Bach's best works. The old team leader vetoed the idea saying, "We don't want to show off."

    (snip)

    It was the Voyagers' golden record

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

    Unfortunately for your story, it contains three sections by Bach:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_Voyager_Golden_Record
    Gee, thanks, Mr. Jessop. I did say I would have liked the story to be true, and now, thanks to you I know it is not. Another happy illusion, albeit a very small one, shattered and at my age I don't have many left.

    I think I'll go now and spend a few hours continuing to read up on the Black Death.
    Ooops. Sorry. :(
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/686532434578509824
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/686532434578509824

    Are there any Tories* who don't think 2020 will be a pushover with JC still there ?

    *or actually anyone bar JC ?

  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Dearie me

    Labour Marqis
    Corbynistas and their hilarious parody accounts https://t.co/LdYqZiFnZs
  • Dair
    Dair Posts: 6,108
    Plato_Says said:

    I'd give Gotham S1 another try, after about E5 it makes more sense. S2 is better.

    I'm bored stiff by Agents of Shield and haven't watched the last season at all. I've Teen Wolf S3 and S4 to catch up on.

    Shield improved a lot in S2 but was still too heavily tied to the movies to really work on its own. Now they have dropped that, it's pretty decent and they're taking some risks that are paying off. They did a single hander episode with Elizabeth Henstridge this year and it was really excellent.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    TGOHF said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/686532434578509824

    Are there any Tories* who don't think 2020 will be a pushover with JC still there ?

    *or actually anyone bar JC ?

    If you are to the right of Corbyn, we are all Tories now...
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).

    Purcell was a fabulous composer. His facility for setting English words was extraordinary. I can listen to a song of his and think "There's nothing to this. This is just the obvious music for these words." Then it dawns on me what I've just said. I Attempt from Love's Sickness is an example of what I mean.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Labour's good relations with the press continue. @janemerrick23 says it best, "it's just not fucking on" https://t.co/oVjg6jHm5c
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Fascinating, I didn't know this.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/uk_alcohol_guidelines_are_junk_but_why/

    If you’re wondering who pays for this mini-industry of Puritans, then you don’t have to look far, as I discovered in 2012 by examining the history of a Victorian society which began life in 1852 as the “United Kingdom Alliance to Procure the Total and Immediate Legislative Suppression of the Traffic in All Intoxicating Liquors”. It’s still going, only now it’s called the Alliance House Foundation, or AHF. The AHF funds the Institute for Alcohol Studies, which is giddy with excitement today – but wants the cancer scare to be amplified.

    The largest funder of the AHF is the European Union. In other words, it’s you.

  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    Plato_Says said:

    Labour's good relations with the press continue. @janemerrick23 says it best, "it's just not fucking on" https://t.co/oVjg6jHm5c

    And this is a member of the soft left liberal media, not the Currant Bun...
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/carwyn-jones-declares-ukip-threat-10712894

    This should be interesting, but I fail to understand why Carwyn Jones agreed to debate Farage. Seems like a bit of a no win.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    taffys said:

    I fail to understand why Carwyn Jones agreed to debate Farage. Seems like a bit of a no win.

    They both want to be on telly
  • CarlottaVance
    CarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Plato_Says said:

    Labour's good relations with the press continue. @janemerrick23 says it best, "it's just not fucking on" https://t.co/oVjg6jHm5c

    Earlier tweet of hers: +++Am hearing that Sir John Chilcot is being called in by Jeremy Corbyn to speed up the reshuffle++++
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Maomentum_: Hearing Shadow Cabinet have arranged for @jeremycorbyn to be interviewed by Sean Penn.
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    ''They both want to be on telly''

    Very inconvenient for Jones is the mooted closure of Port Talbot steelworks in rock solid labour territory.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,736
    Scott_P said:

    @Maomentum_: Hearing Shadow Cabinet have arranged for @jeremycorbyn to be interviewed by Sean Penn.

    LOL
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    On the topic of Bach, for immediate elevation to Pseud's Corner, I recommend

    "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid", for 1970s quasi-intellectual clap trap at its very finest. I'm still not sure if its a work of genius in and of itself, or the non-fiction equivalent of Stephen Fry. He does write beautifully about Bach, nonetheless.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Methinks alot of soft left journalists are hostile to Corbyn as they can't bear the thought of the Conservatives being in power forever more.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    oxfordsimon said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).

    I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.

    And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
    Mozart wrote some great music no doubt, but was also a terrible smart-arse, and lazy, churning out reams of mannered, clichéd, superficial stuff. Too much sweetness and light. I might be influenced by having had to plough through Eine Kleine umpteen times at school.

    As I get older, I immerse myself in the more romantic music. Rachmaninov, Delius, even the
    film music of Bernard Herrmann. (incidentally George Martin was inspired to incorporate the strings on Eleanor Rigby in homage to Herrmann)

    Jazz piano can take me there too. Art Tatum, for his impossible virtuosity, humour and triumph over adversity. Bill Evans for his "love letters written from some prison of the heart."

    And Ben Webster, for his smoky whisperings through his tenor sax on a slow ballad...
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Have to say that GOsborneGenius, late of this parish as I understand it, has been pretty much on point today
    https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/686536319858786304
  • MarqueeMark
    MarqueeMark Posts: 55,459
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TGOHF said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/686532434578509824

    Are there any Tories* who don't think 2020 will be a pushover with JC still there ?

    *or actually anyone bar JC ?

    If you are to the right of Corbyn, we are all Tories now...
    How many are to the left of Corbyn?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories