venta

I've been doing some tidying up recently, and trying to sort through a massive stack of unlabelled tapes. Some have been easily dismissed as blank, or not things I recognise as mine. Some turn out to be taped-off-the-radio tapes from the late 80s/early 90s. Which has been fascinating, even as it has confirmed that my early teenage self had flippin' awful taste in music.

The most recent tape appeared to feature me inadvertently leaving the tape recording until it fell off the end, capturing me a fascinating slice of local radio. I think the overal quality of songs actually went up without my curation, despite it taking in Male Stripper. And it includes one of the fabulous "The one you've got to come back for" McEwan's Best Scotch adverts. The cars advertised were G-reg, meaning I can place it as somewhere between 1 August 1989 31 July 1990 (thank you, Wikipedia).

Anyway, I'm on to another one and I thought I'd have a little go at live-blogging it as I listen[**]. I have absolutely no idea what's on it. This may turn out very dull :)

( Side A )

( Side B )


[**] If you accept "typing it into a text file at the time then forgetting to post it for a few days" as a reasonably definition of 'live-blogging'.

Oh that explains it. I've been struggling for some time to work out why I'd heard of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely the most unwieldy name in showbiz) prior to his playing Sherlock. IMDB didn't really offer any clues. Anyway, it turns out he played the rather inept Captain Martin Crief in Cabin Pressure

Cabin Pressure is a ( Grade II radio 4 comedy )

Right. Enough. I'm calling time on this social networking bandwagon. It's all very well for teenagers, but it is not incumbent upon every institution on the planet to get itself on Twitter. According to an email I received recently, you can even follow the University of Oxford on bloody Twitter.

I finally snapped when, after listening to the Reith Lectures (this year on the subject of "Citizenship") on Radio 4, a continuity announcer told me I could join in the debate on Twitter. Because yeah, nothing says informed and scholarly argument like 140 characters.

So... adaptations of, sequels to or improvements on classic literature are always a mistake, right ?

Something which is completely genre-defying is going to be a disaster, right ?

On the radio this morning I heard about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies!.

I want to hate it. I really do. But the author - interviewed on the Today programmer, for his sins - somehow managed to sound so endearing that it's actually made me want to read it. He described carefully reading "one of the most expertly plotted novels" in order to insert sequences of "gratuitous gore and zombie mayhem". He sounds like he has a huge respect for Austen (the finished work is "about 85% Austen"), and as if he had a real sense of humour about the whole thing. He agreed it was not an extensible idea, and promised not to go on to do Sense and Sensibility and Werewolves.

Help. Someone convince me that this book is going to suck before I have to deal with the disappointment.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in need of more brains...

A quick advert...

Yesterday, I waddled off to visit Auntie and hear The Now Show recorded. If the live performance was anything to go by, the broadcast will be very funny indeed: it goes out tonight at half six on Radio 4. If you've not heard it before, it's basically 30 minutes of topical satire and silliness from Punt & Dennis, with sundry assistants and guest-ranting by Marcus Brigstocke.

I don't know how the show will have been edited, but I imagine quite a large chunk will be taken up with them talking about (by which I mean "ripping the piss out of") Bonekickers. And they barely mentioned Max Mosley; I'm sick of him already.