I decided to take a brief detour - on my way to giving Liam Gallagher the textual beating I feel he requires - to talk about something which was brought back to my attention yesterday. It ties in with this trend that we, the current generation of sycophants, have for attempting to claim every most recent thing/person/achievement as the 'greatest of all time' which, quite frankly, is a moronic conversation in any circumstance. Allow me to explain exactly how I arrived at this topic.
I watched the Mexico-Italy match on BBC the other day and found myself listening to the dorks in the studio talking about a recent Spain side possibly being the best team ever assembled. They then decided to hold a fan poll on what the greatest football team of all time is and included the gargantuan total of two teams. A choice of either Brazil (1970) or Spain (2010). On what basis is it a two horse race? And why is anyone having this discussion? It is a waste of time. The only way we will ever find out the greatest side ever is if scientists developed a way where we could bring every team that won every competition since professional football began and throw them into a tournament, but even then the result would never be absolutely definitive. Some teams wouldn't play against each other and there would always be a certain way of playing that some oppositions wouldn't be able to handle no matter how good either side is. A lot of results depend on how the players feel and/or perform on the day. One bad game and your potential title could be screwed. You've also got the possibility of the tournament lasting about a decade in which players would age, lose some of the talent they once had and probably retire in the middle of it. Plus, the two horse thing is a joke. It's all based on statistics which mean almost nothing. Did you ever consider that Spain may have won those titles not because they are that good, but because the opposition was that bad at the time? No, of course you didn't. It's not just about how good the winner is, you also have to consider how garbage the loser was. Another thing which should be accounted for is each individual person's interpretation of a great team. There are those who believe that the best teams win everything there is to win, but others judge on things like entertainment value and/or how skilled a team is.
We are living in a generation where we are strangely desperate to claim that we had the 'best ever' at most things, especially in sport. A guy for some football team scores a decent goal for once in his career and, just because the commentators go bananas, all of a sudden we're attempting to claim that this guy is the best ever!? I don't understand why we can't just watch and admire without comparing things which are not even comparable. It's a dumb debate and not one that those bums on the BBC or anyone else should be wasting their time on. If you can't accept it then too bad for you.
Enlightening spiels from the land of Whiskey and Shortbread.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Time to Silence The Voice: Paving the Way for the Forthcoming Textual Destruction of Liam Gallagher
As I've been typing these blog posts over time - not as consistently as I would like, admittedly, but I have a lot of unpublished 'drafts' on here that I haven't been able to finish because my mind travels through so many topics at such an alarming rate - I've talked a lot of trash about the X-Factor. I'm not about to retract anything I've said because I really do hate everything about it, but I'm aiming this one more towards the new(ish) blood. The Voice.
I remember a time, around about when The Voice was first advertised, where the general public were sitting up, like the mutated puppets they are, and saying things like 'it's totally different to X-Factor' and even going as far as 'the format is better than the X-Factor' which isn't the most demanding of challenges, but it was as if The Voice was going to be far more legitimate and credible. Like most people, I fell for it to begin with. However, unlike most people, I had enough presence of mind to realise early on that it was a sham. I can't say that it's exactly like the X-Factor, but it's as close as it could ever be without actually being the X-Factor. After all the talk about how 'different', 'fresh' and 'exciting' it was going to be for the entire talent show sub genre, it was neither here nor there.
The format is as simple as it always was - people who either reckon they can sing or reckon they can be rich, attention seekers apply for auditions, they "perform" to a few witless and tediously boring celebrities, who are given the title of judges, and another irritating bunch of lunatics, AKA the studio audience. This is where things do get slightly different, just not in the revolutionary and exciting way that was being made out. The judges are not looking at the performer during the audition, they are facing the audience. This is to give the impression that the applicant is being praised/criticised (poorly) solely based on their singing talent, as opposed to their looks. If any of the judges like what they hear, they have the opportunity to press a button which revolves their chair - thus making them look like half-naked Daleks with a loose wire - to face the stage which signifies that the judge has picked the performer for their 'team'. Then it returns to the all too familiar theme of the judges competing against each other using their respective teams, only they get to pick their teams as opposed to being given a categorised group.
I really wish I didn't feel like I had to explain all of that, but when you've got so many gullable monstrosities who clearly don't see things for what they truly are, you really don't have much choice. All I want to know is what people do see in this garbage excuse for televised programming, without receiving the same dull and thoughtless answers like 'it's a laugh', 'it's only a programme', 'there's nothing else on', 'each to their own' and all that crap. I'm talking about a genuine definitive reason to tune in. I want someone to try and sell it to me. I'd bank on that being virtually impossible. Even Britain's Got Talent has ran its course. How many more times are we going to be so shocked and get wet at a child being able to sing? You've seen it a thousand times now, get over it. I'm sick of this 'oh my god, I can't believe that kid has a decent voice.' Of course they do. Do you actually think that it takes years and years of training to be good at singing? If you answered 'yes' then you are down right stupid. You're even more delusional if you think it's something that just occurs suddenly when you reach a certain age. BGT is slightly more entertaining at times due to the fact that it welcomes all kinds of talent and you get folk walking on stage and doing some ridiculous acts. Other times, you're just embarrassed to be British.
One thing that annoyed the hell out of me during the current series of The Voice (I don't watch it, I just hear/read about things randomly) was the appearance of the band Beady Eye, fronted by former Oasis arse Liam Gallagher, to perform. As I'm typing, I'm contemplating an entire future blog post dedicated to my thoughts on Liam Gallagher as a human and as a musician, so I don't want to say too much about him. I will conclude this post with a one line teaser...
Having Liam Gallagher so much as appear on any talent show is as absurd as having a badly disfigured John McCririck appear on Britain's Next Top Model.
I remember a time, around about when The Voice was first advertised, where the general public were sitting up, like the mutated puppets they are, and saying things like 'it's totally different to X-Factor' and even going as far as 'the format is better than the X-Factor' which isn't the most demanding of challenges, but it was as if The Voice was going to be far more legitimate and credible. Like most people, I fell for it to begin with. However, unlike most people, I had enough presence of mind to realise early on that it was a sham. I can't say that it's exactly like the X-Factor, but it's as close as it could ever be without actually being the X-Factor. After all the talk about how 'different', 'fresh' and 'exciting' it was going to be for the entire talent show sub genre, it was neither here nor there.
The format is as simple as it always was - people who either reckon they can sing or reckon they can be rich, attention seekers apply for auditions, they "perform" to a few witless and tediously boring celebrities, who are given the title of judges, and another irritating bunch of lunatics, AKA the studio audience. This is where things do get slightly different, just not in the revolutionary and exciting way that was being made out. The judges are not looking at the performer during the audition, they are facing the audience. This is to give the impression that the applicant is being praised/criticised (poorly) solely based on their singing talent, as opposed to their looks. If any of the judges like what they hear, they have the opportunity to press a button which revolves their chair - thus making them look like half-naked Daleks with a loose wire - to face the stage which signifies that the judge has picked the performer for their 'team'. Then it returns to the all too familiar theme of the judges competing against each other using their respective teams, only they get to pick their teams as opposed to being given a categorised group.
I really wish I didn't feel like I had to explain all of that, but when you've got so many gullable monstrosities who clearly don't see things for what they truly are, you really don't have much choice. All I want to know is what people do see in this garbage excuse for televised programming, without receiving the same dull and thoughtless answers like 'it's a laugh', 'it's only a programme', 'there's nothing else on', 'each to their own' and all that crap. I'm talking about a genuine definitive reason to tune in. I want someone to try and sell it to me. I'd bank on that being virtually impossible. Even Britain's Got Talent has ran its course. How many more times are we going to be so shocked and get wet at a child being able to sing? You've seen it a thousand times now, get over it. I'm sick of this 'oh my god, I can't believe that kid has a decent voice.' Of course they do. Do you actually think that it takes years and years of training to be good at singing? If you answered 'yes' then you are down right stupid. You're even more delusional if you think it's something that just occurs suddenly when you reach a certain age. BGT is slightly more entertaining at times due to the fact that it welcomes all kinds of talent and you get folk walking on stage and doing some ridiculous acts. Other times, you're just embarrassed to be British.
One thing that annoyed the hell out of me during the current series of The Voice (I don't watch it, I just hear/read about things randomly) was the appearance of the band Beady Eye, fronted by former Oasis arse Liam Gallagher, to perform. As I'm typing, I'm contemplating an entire future blog post dedicated to my thoughts on Liam Gallagher as a human and as a musician, so I don't want to say too much about him. I will conclude this post with a one line teaser...
Having Liam Gallagher so much as appear on any talent show is as absurd as having a badly disfigured John McCririck appear on Britain's Next Top Model.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Snap[chat] out of it!
I decided to dedicate a post to the new whirlwind, out-of-the-blue craze known as Snapchat, not because I think the App deserves the attention - as if it needs more attention anyway - but because I feel like the pointless fake fun it offers commands a verbal beating. If you have never heard of it and, thus, are unaware of what Snapchat is, good for you and stop reading now because my advice is that you keep it that way. Snapchat is not worth the spot in your memory.
"You control how long your friends can view your message - simply set the timer up to ten seconds and send. They'll have that long to view your message and then it disappears forever."
Has there ever been anything more pointless? Ten seconds!? What self-respecting human being dreams of being able to view a message/picture for ten seconds or less? It's a stupid idea for stupid people by stupid people. If you post a message that takes no more than ten seconds to read, it is most likely meaningless and you should be ashamed to have spent any amount of time creating it yourself.
"Rated 12+ for the following: Infrequent/Mild Sexual Content or Nudity, Infrequent/Mild Alcohol, Tobacco, Drug Use or References to these, Infrequent/Mild Profanity or Crude Humor, Infrequent/Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes."
'Girls post pictures of their tits and stuff!' Why act as if viewing a girl's breasts for a very, very short period of time is the best thing ever when you live in a world where many girls will show you them willingly for a much longer time frame? Even failing that, you have a seemingly endless line of websites where you can watch far better looking women do far filthier things for hours on end if you really have to! Besides, you could find yourself staring at things you don't want to see by the same token. At least the creators are clued up enough on the adolescent mentality to know that this is the sort of bullshit that people will use it for, even if they have slightly misjudged how far people will go by putting the words 'infrequent' and 'mild' next to every entry. Even so, if you're uploading a picture of your penis for as little as three seconds, it's not exactly going to get a chance to have much impact on anyone.
"Build relationships, collect points, and view your best friends!"
Indeed, it appears they forgot to explain how someone is supposed to find any points to collect in an application as supremely pointless as this one. What do they mean 'build relationships?' If you've built a relationship based on photographs which last the same amount of time it takes Usain Bolt to run a hundred metres, I put it to you that it is about as meaningful as Wayne Rooney's belly-button fluff. Also, if I wanted to "view" my best friends, I would call them up and ask them to come meet me or I would go to their house. You can't have those things as a temptation because they're either worthless or nothing we can't get on a regular basis anyway... or both.
Through all of this rise in technology filled with social media - such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram - I have buckled under peer pressure just about every single time, but this is by far the easiest social networking 'fad' there has ever been to ignore and say 'nah, I'd rather chew on my own testicles than download that shit.' It's about time we scrapped this whole social network crap and got on with our lives without feeling the need to tell every other person as if it's worth the energy it takes to look at it.
"You control how long your friends can view your message - simply set the timer up to ten seconds and send. They'll have that long to view your message and then it disappears forever."
Has there ever been anything more pointless? Ten seconds!? What self-respecting human being dreams of being able to view a message/picture for ten seconds or less? It's a stupid idea for stupid people by stupid people. If you post a message that takes no more than ten seconds to read, it is most likely meaningless and you should be ashamed to have spent any amount of time creating it yourself.
"Rated 12+ for the following: Infrequent/Mild Sexual Content or Nudity, Infrequent/Mild Alcohol, Tobacco, Drug Use or References to these, Infrequent/Mild Profanity or Crude Humor, Infrequent/Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes."
'Girls post pictures of their tits and stuff!' Why act as if viewing a girl's breasts for a very, very short period of time is the best thing ever when you live in a world where many girls will show you them willingly for a much longer time frame? Even failing that, you have a seemingly endless line of websites where you can watch far better looking women do far filthier things for hours on end if you really have to! Besides, you could find yourself staring at things you don't want to see by the same token. At least the creators are clued up enough on the adolescent mentality to know that this is the sort of bullshit that people will use it for, even if they have slightly misjudged how far people will go by putting the words 'infrequent' and 'mild' next to every entry. Even so, if you're uploading a picture of your penis for as little as three seconds, it's not exactly going to get a chance to have much impact on anyone.
"Build relationships, collect points, and view your best friends!"
Indeed, it appears they forgot to explain how someone is supposed to find any points to collect in an application as supremely pointless as this one. What do they mean 'build relationships?' If you've built a relationship based on photographs which last the same amount of time it takes Usain Bolt to run a hundred metres, I put it to you that it is about as meaningful as Wayne Rooney's belly-button fluff. Also, if I wanted to "view" my best friends, I would call them up and ask them to come meet me or I would go to their house. You can't have those things as a temptation because they're either worthless or nothing we can't get on a regular basis anyway... or both.
Through all of this rise in technology filled with social media - such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram - I have buckled under peer pressure just about every single time, but this is by far the easiest social networking 'fad' there has ever been to ignore and say 'nah, I'd rather chew on my own testicles than download that shit.' It's about time we scrapped this whole social network crap and got on with our lives without feeling the need to tell every other person as if it's worth the energy it takes to look at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)