Noone is forcing you to stay here and given your opinions, if you don't like it..fuck off! This is a website for opinions, and surprisingly not everyone may agree with your intriguing argument, if you can't handle that some people might have different views to yours..then I guess your absense from now on can only be celebrated. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'Chet Morton' on Thu Jul 26 11:55:48 BST 2001:

I think that response demonstrates exactly why they left. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Peter on Thu Jul 26 12:21:46 BST 2001:

I think i got bored of the same postings for pretty much the same reasons (if a little less powerful in my own thoughts). The arguements would never seem to get anywhere, either side seemingly not able to see the others point of reach any kind of conclusion. But it happens all the time as far as i've noticed - it's just perhaps this time it was a little more obvious.
It made me stop/cut dowmn on posting for a while because i got sick of the whole brass eye nonsense (not the show though, obviously) and the all the arguements between people that followed.
But I'm not sure if that's a good reason to leave completely. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 13:26:28 BST 2001:

Don't go, Ailie.

I'm sick of all the constant carping, but I'm going to stay here because it's the best comedy discussion site on the planet. And I love talking about comedy, and tv and music.

If it interests anyone, when I first discovered this site a year or so ago, I didn't run around to people saying "hey, you've got to check this site out! It's really bitter and unpleasant and twisted about Channel 4 commissioning procedures!", I said "Check out this site it's full of beautifully written paeans to Saturday Night Fry!".

And yet, recently, I appear to have been in the minority. Did everyone else come here because they wanted support for their paranoid grumblings about the decline of absolutely everything? Someone further down the forum, in response to someone who thought Brass Eye was sick, just posted "The Daily Mail's two doors down". No, mate. It's closer than that. Conservatism with a small c is as dangerous and blinkered as relentless innovation for its own sake.


Anyway, Ailie, if we fuck off, then the whingers have won. Stay here and start separate threads about things you like. And argue cogently when required to defend them. I try to. I like shitloads of stuff that is heresy on this forum, and hate plenty of things everyone else raves about.

I'm going to stay and see what happens, whether this wave of childish negativity passes or tempers itself into something more reasoned, but I'm just bloody minded like that.

And, yes, I could slap people too. But it doesn't fit my forum profile.

Sod 'em all anyway. Channel 4 commissioning editors and whinging gobshites alike. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Joe4SOTCAA on Thu Jul 26 13:57:28 BST 2001:

>There are things more important to me than a repeat of something that's already been shown, as there should be issues more important to you too, especially as a load
of you have these shows on tape and so have no real reason to see them repeated.

How about the important issue of why the same joyous 'attitude' which created those shows we have on tape no longer exists. The *attitude*, Ailie. An attitude which permeates every walk of life, every decision-making process, every office, every relationship, every smile on a child's face, etc, etc.

Haven't you considered that the reason why people with a tapeful of those shows want others to see them is so they might enjoy them too and then get hungry for more? I'm absolutely amazed you seem to think that this is some kind of selfishness on people's parts. Moaning about shows we all have on tape anyway? No. No. No. You've not understood this at all.

You've tried to isolate something that's gone wrong with this forum. Here's a slightly different viewpoint.

Bad knee-jerk responses to passionate arguments used to come to us direct via e-mail. I'm talking about the 'You're WRONG - I'm Alan Partridge was GOOD because me and my friends LIKED it, understand?" school of debate. And the reason they'd come to us at SOTCAA directly rather than to this forum is because those incapable of holding an argument would take one look at what was being said and think "Farking hell - they use actual sentances and stuff. I'd just look stupid by comparison".

That's what marked this forum out from others of its ilk. It didn't pander to the sort of people who needed their opinions mirrored to make themselves feel better.

After two months without a phone I came back on-line last week to find far too many threads filled with aggressive twattle, from people who can't stomach debates, attempting to bring everything to a halt with passionless, badly conceived arguments, shouted in that same aloof indignant 'I'm right, you're wrong' tone. Countless pointless, infuriating, media-suckling examples of indifference towards people who care about TV and a blind insistance that we should be 'positive' about stuff instead of knocking it.

The more passionate amongst the forum regulars wince and angrily trade insults with this new breed, annoyed that this anti-SOTCAA crap is spreading through the forum.

In other words the ubiquitous presence of people who don't really give a shit have created an atmosphere where people who care passionately are being shouted down and told to lighten up.

Now, does that remind you of a similar situation from last year? Jon? Steven? Herring? Time fucking Gentlemen fucking Please? Seen it all before.

The mantra goes on: "Why do you always have to criticise, why not be positive, after all comedy is subjective, you either like it or you don't, I am a giraffe, do you like my feathers..."

Whatever. Have fun on SOTCAA Regs, Ailie. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'NL' on Thu Jul 26 14:11:39 BST 2001:

>And yet, recently, I appear to have been in the minority.

Unruly, are you really saying that the forum isn't as good as it used to be? ;)

Seriously, not being an regular contributor due to work commitments, I still manage to read most of the threads and after trudging through the C4 squabble above I thought Ailie's posting was a complete breath of fresh air. It reaffirmed my faith in this forum which was dwindling rapidly after all the Berry baiting that was going on.
If Ailie leaves I think this site will be a much poorer place as a result.

BTW those 'it DID' posts actually made me want to commit violence upon my PC not because of the sentiments they conveyed just the tone, shows the power of the written word eh? Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Thu Jul 26 15:06:37 BST 2001:

>
>After two months without a phone I came back on-line last week to find far too many threads filled with aggressive twattle, from people who can't stomach debates, attempting to bring everything to a halt with passionless, badly conceived arguments, shouted in that same aloof indignant 'I'm right, you're wrong' tone. Countless pointless, infuriating, media-suckling examples of indifference towards people who care about TV and a blind insistance that we should be 'positive' about stuff instead of knocking it.
>

Read the Exciting New Programmes From The Powerhouse Of Creativity That Is E4 thread.
Who is ranting "I'm right, you're wrong"? Who is the aggression coming from? And who is actually quoting precise TV schedules?
Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'Jessica' on Thu Jul 26 15:40:50 BST 2001:

>How about the important issue of why the same joyous 'attitude' which created those shows we have on tape no longer exists.

It may just be on this forum, but the people who are being accused on this thread rarely exhibit that joyous attitude. I know that they and you are capable of it, but you ought to try to practice what you preach more often, didn't you? Many of the articles succeed in this, and I've corresponded with TJ and know that he's capable as well. Unruly Butler comes across as extremely and genuinely joyful - that's why I've taken to creeping around him.

>The *attitude*, Ailie. An attitude which permeates every walk of life, every decision-making process, every office, every relationship, every smile on a child's face, etc, etc.

But not yourself on this forum it seems. You're one of the grumpiest people on here.

You *do* talk sense, much of the time. You *do* seem to welcome well-argued dissent from SOTCAA dogma. But too many counter-arguments are ignored or belittled with sneering 'you don't understand' messages. Or an hilarious sarcastic jibe. Consequently people either don't voice dissent, or they send a 'Yu ar idiotz' message.

Do you want a forum full of people who completely agree with everything you say and do or people who only disagree on trivialities? I don't think you do. There are some fantastic debates on here from time to time. Personally, I'd like to more of them.

If people fail to understand one of your points, you may need to try and articulate it more clearly. If they keep misunderstanding it, either it isn't a valid argument or they don't want to.

>You've tried to isolate something that's gone wrong with this forum. Here's a slightly different viewpoint.

Nothing's gone wrong with the forum, has it? There are a couple of heated threads at the moment, but that's not ruined the thing for all time. There are some interesting debates going on, and some less so.

>a blind insistance that we should be 'positive' about stuff instead of knocking it.

Passionately positive about *some* stuff. There is a difference. Yo ucan dismiss all these arguments as alike, but that's just sweeping them under the carpet. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 15:53:31 BST 2001:

Ah! I'm being crept round. I thought it was mice. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'Chet Morton' on Thu Jul 26 16:31:54 BST 2001:

I second that, Jessica. I mean, you can find "I genuinely hope you get hit by a car later on" in a thread above. Not exactly overbrimming with joy, that one.

Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 16:44:08 BST 2001:

"Charlie Brooker gets his legs broken" etc etc.

The sort of argument that endeared bitter anti-plebian Nicky Wire to the world when he said "I hope Michael Stipe gets AIDS". Nice people to do business with, these angry would-be intellectuals. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Justin on Thu Jul 26 19:54:44 BST 2001:

> Read the Exciting New Programmes From The Powerhouse Of Creativity That Is E4 thread.
> Who is ranting "I'm right, you're wrong"?

The rantings resulted from several attempts to start a debate about Channel 4's general standards, regardless of whether they show Brass Eye's Special or not, as there was a huge amount of self-congratulation on E4's forum about it. No-one called Steve Berry a fuckwit, but he took it upon himself to represent the channel in the debate since. For which I take my hat off to him. Better that than anonymous wankers turning up.

On one occasion the debate, which was actually going quite well, dissolved into irrelevancy and glib responses. I regret the tone occasionally, but I mean every word of the content I post on this forum, and I take exception to the idea that people on here don't know stuff. (I am not even including myself in that bracket, but I'm sure people know by now who I mean.)

>Who is the aggression coming from?

The people who are banging their heads against a brick wall.

>And who is actually quoting precise TV schedules?

Er, well originally I quoted some tx dates, including times. That was about three weeks ago now. Not that I disbelieve Steve's 1991 schedule.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter, you'll doubtless all be relieved to know. Now, does someone want to call me a cunt? Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'Evans' on Thu Jul 26 20:23:50 BST 2001:

A few points that might help explain why SOTCAA is fucking vital at this stage in the game.
1) From a historical perspective, popular culture is at its most vibrant, exciting and unpredictable when there is the least amount of mediation between the people who produce it and the people who consume it.
2) Culture will always be mediated in some way. In music, it's by the labels. In fiction, it's by the publishers. In TV it's by commissioning editors and others. By definition, the record label bosses, the publishers, the commissioning editors are not creative people. Their bottom line is not the same as the creative person. It is, quite naturally, profit. There will always be conflict between the creative person and the mediator, one of whom just wants to see his/her vision take shape, the other of whom wants the product to sell. The conflict is built into the relationship between creator and producer. As long as the non-creative end doesn't have the upper hand, it is a relationship that can work, allowing extraordinary individuals to say and do extraordinary things in front of millions of people.
3) Pop music is a perfect example of what this site is fighting against. In the early days of pop music, record labels had only the vaguest idea of what it was they were selling. All they knew for sure was that the kids loved it. In the eternal struggle between creator and producer, the creators had the upper hand, because the producers had yet to develop efficient ways of maximising the profit they knew was lurking in that vinyl. As the years have gone by, the mediators of pop music have figured it out - hormones+rebellion+sex+sentimentality=an absolute killing in the lucrative teen market. In terms of pop, the producers have now won. (This is not to say there is no good pop being made or released. Just that the days of interesting, provoking, carefree, often insane pop in the mainstream is no longer possible. Hence the fragmentation of the pop market into a myriad micro-genres.)
4) To comedy, at last. When Python was commissioned, no-one other than the six Pythons knew what the fuck was going on. When The Young Ones appeared, the BBC didn't really understand what this new generation of comedians was doing, but intuited that it was significant enough to warrant a series and commissioned just that. In that eternal struggle between creator and producer, as in pop at an earlier stage, the creators were winning because the producer were not yet hip to the best ways to sell this stuff.
5) The present - we may have crossed the line. We may be crossing it now. SOTCAA is concerned about this.
6)All the signs are there. It doesn't really matter whether you like Ali G, I'm Alan Partridge or Time Gentlemen Please. If you do, of course you must go with your instinct and laugh. But aside from your personal taste (and your defensiveness), you must surely wonder if these phenomena, and others, are symptoms - that the producers are winning. SOTCAA is right to draw attention to these programmes, along with disparate other phenomena, from Jamie Theakston to nostlagia TV to 100 Greatest shows. This is not a scattergun attack based on personal prejudice. SOTCAA is arguing that these are signs we should be reading, signs that may well signal something any lover of vital, unpredictable culture (in this case comedy) must surely be worried about. The manner in which these programmes and people arrive on our screens is every bit as important as what we thought of them when we consumed them. To use pop as an example again - you may love the vintage Spice Girls, but can you really ignore the cynical, demographically researched way they were assembled and marketed?
6) If you want to defend your ground over individual shows you like, then SOTCAA is clearly not for you. SOTCAA is attempting an overview of the popular culture industry as it stands at this point in history,using comedy as its focus because it happens to be the form both Corpses love above all others.
If you do not want to engage with the issues underlying SOTCAA - which have nothing to do with personal prejudices - then for God's sake do it. That's why this site exists. If not, then never visit it again - but don't complain when the producers turn comedy into the sickenignly cynical and predictable culture production line mainstream pop has become.
Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By Justin on Thu Jul 26 20:32:40 BST 2001:

Astonishing post, Evans. Top stuff. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'The Lord Privy Toast Rack' on Thu Jul 26 20:42:48 BST 2001:

It's important to distinguish between SOTCAA and the forum. Mike and Joe would be advised to publish new articles as and when they are ready, rather than hoarding up a big update to be unleashed in one go. It's no good expecting the forum to continue to toe their line in the meantime as a stopgap mouthpiece thing. It would be boring like that anyway.

The people who think absolutely every (apart from Absolutely) is dreadful may be absolutely right, but the odd challenge will only help them to sharpen up their theories. If they just parrot back the same tedious catchphrase, then "who's the cunt?" as the corpses might put it.

And if, dear reader, you found nothing whatsoever funny in 'Da Best of Ali G,' then you need your heart restarting, so I will withdraw and allow the doctors to commence their pumping. Yes, it was disgustingly popular and the Ali G television series was entirely surplus to requirements, but the interviews had their moments. Tell me which bits were bad, by all means, but at least have a try at remembering which bits were good. Subject: Re: How it is.
Posted By 'Evans' on Thu Jul 26 20:43:50 BST 2001:

>Astonishing post, Evans. Top stuff.

Well, that's how it is.