dinger

Gills fan in the office here seems to think it's a done deal (he's been raving about the player for ages) and asked me this morning how good Forecast is. It was hard to deliver that news gently...

I remember him covering one of the TV games last season when he described his move to Southampton as "the best decision of my life" and said what a great club we are. Probably the first time I've ever been pleased to hear Shearer say anything.

I agree with this.

Remind me to use a different cubicle...

Forming arbitrary groups of people and judging the whole on the actions of the few; the fundamentals of prejudice. Also the bread and butter of the Daily Mail.

Yeah, that's the sensible approach. There's nothing more likely to help a man mend his ways and atone for his crime then ostracising him and forcing him out of a job. Should he just be forced out of football, or out of any job? How does he then support himself; through crime? Or benefits? Or is that suddenly no longer society's concern?

In order to punish them for the crime they committed. Surely that's obvious? And then they are rehabilitated back into society. The only question is whether the term he served is severe enough for the crime. I personally think not. But harsh as it may seem, the jail term is not there to recompense the direct victims (how could it?), it's there to act as a deterrent for other people and to remove harmful elements from society until they are deemed fit to return to law-abiding life.

Where has that happened? You do love a straw man argument, don't you...

How can you possibly have a basis for an opinion about that? He may not care at all. Or he may have spent every day of his sentence in tears of repentence. Unless you know any of the parties then you're guessing, and yet you're using it to whip yourself up into fury.

Hmm, this is all a bit hysterical. I also think that the sentence was too short, but that's a different matter (I've got very strong opinions about drink-driving). But he didn't set the tariff; he has served his sentence and is now going back in to society to get a job (the one he's trained to do) and be rehabilitated into society. Isn't that what the penal system is for?

Which one are you?

Jeez, if I've come across as some young scamp who's inflamed because the beautiful original has been despoiled then I haven't expressed myself very well at all. This version doesn't work because quality has been taken from the original and insufficient quality has been substituted. That stuff about a good song working in any style is cobblers. Would you watch a Chicago Juke version of the Ring Cycle? Except for novelty value? But if you measured the stress on the pulse of Dylan as he performed Blonde on Blonde and reproduced it as minimal techno, that would be art. Any speculation about what Ian Curtis may or may not have thought is redundant.

By which they surely mean someone like Martinez, rather than someone untested in any top division? The Scouse fans would never wear it.

The last paragraph stands as an apology for the orginal post. I thought that was obvious from what it said. I still think that song's awful, but I'm generally more live and let live about that sort of thing.

Hey man, I'm not trying to suggest there are no good cover versions or that an original is sacrosanct. Far from it. The Hendrix and Miles examples you give are good ones. I'm saying that this one is bad, and it comes of a particular mindset that a song should be able to stand up on its own. That idea that if you take everything away and just sing it earnestly it reveals what the listener might never have suspected, *gasp*, a good song, smacks to me of arrogance and laziness. Joy Division created a very specific sound environment which is as much part of the song as the lyrics. Take that away and it becomes a different song, and in this case (IMO) a lesser song. Your presumption that I might be 'prejudiced' against a particular genre underestimates just how much music I listen to, and how I came to an opinion about a scene that (while brilliant music is being made on the adventurous fringes of 'folk') is largely consumed by its own smugness and self-reference. Anyhow, I get really annoyed by people who criticize another's taste in music, and now I've just spent two posts doing it. Apologies for that. I'll crawl back in my shell now...

This may be an utterly subjective, pointless argument, but it's one I'm prepared to have. That's insipid and gutless, and (to these ears) relies for its justification on the notion that the faux-authenticity of the folk-rock scene is excuse enough for its (the tune's and the scene's) creative retardation. And the idea that "the very best music and lyrics always work in any style", mentioned above, is just patent nonsense. The very best music and/or lyrics are a marriage of form and function, of style and intent. A good musician will have found what they consider to be the best musical/lyrical form to represent their vision for the song. Sometimes another artist can take a piece and recontextualise it, adding something in the process. Sometimes an musician can cover a tune in the same style as the original, in the hope that an audience will put up with a slightly inferior version for want of the original. This version, in common with those execrable 'Live Lounge' things they do on the radio, works from the beige premise that songs should be stripped of their excitement and set instead to a backing of humdrum strum-along, in order to prove the quality of the songcraft. The whole notion is balls. This idea that a great song should work in any style is akin to suggesting that a great novel must work as a film, or a poem should work as a play. The one does not follow the other.

Christ save us all, that's terrible...

We were a bit short of cash at the time, TBF.

I would fertilise his shoulder.

If any Mods read this forum, could you change my inadvertently disrespectful thread title to all CAPS? Ta.

Bad news here, I'm afraid Time to give Check Your Head a spin. There can't be a record I've listened to more often. RIP

The two accusations always seem to be that a) he doesn't score against the big teams, and b) team mates can't resist the easy long ball option when he's playing. I would say: a) He never starts against the big teams, even though he seems to always score for England when he starts. Perhaps he should start? b) They're professional footballers FFS. Tell them not to do it.

1 x pint of water 2 x Ibuprofen 1 x off the wrist Back to sleep for a couple of hours Job done.

I still love you, Deano xx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/19/liverpool-uefa-champions-league-hillsborough?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487