Happy Face

You're assuming that the small percentage of people rich enough to send their kids to private school have enough influence to change government policy. There'll always be more kids in state school than private, there'll always be people in a position to send their kids to private school who nevertheless know it's only right that underpriveliged kids get a good education. Therefore less money will never be spent on state education because the ruling party couldn't bare to lose the votes.

Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Explain how they are getting worse than just stating it, I think it was fair. Why do you go to matches when they're on the telly then? I don't know what plays you have seen, but none of those adjectives could be attributed to the ones shown at the Live theatre for instance. Your basically just talking bollocks now tbh, especially given your use of the bolded word. I wouldn't normally have bothered dragging this out, but I'm not being a WUM. I mainly go to the match because a match on telly only shows you 10% of what's happening on the pitch. Secondly I go for the atmosphere, thirdly for the socialising. Unless you're sitting in the theatre singing songs and abusing the actors then the experience is no different than going to the pictures. If I'm sat in the back row of a theatre I can't see the actor's eyes. They know this and that's why theatre acting is completely different. That's why it's more showy. In silent film it was the same but their exaggerated performance was to balance the lack of dialogue. I'm sure there's some brilliant theatre productions, but they all come flaming.

Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Do you seriously have that much of a problem with live theatre? Never really thought about it to be honest, I've just been waiting five hours for some data to load.

Disgraceful. The way I see it, the more people who can afford to send their kids to private school, the better. Those remaining kids will getter a bigger bite of the state pie so it's a win-win scenario. Doesnt really work like that though does it. It just means that the state schools get less as the people with money ie influence pay for their own kids. Therefore people with money and privelage get better and better off, the poor get increasingly marganilsed and worse off. Sending your kids to private school doesn't leave you exempt from paying taxes. why will state schools get less? Because if the people who have got money to throw at their children have children in the state sector then they are going to be a damn sight more interested in ensuring the state sector provides a decent level of schooling I think you've answered a completely different question. Jeez are you kidding me. To pick a random figure out of the air, let's say that state schools currently get £1Bn in subsidies (I wouldn't have a clue). It's entirely separate to what the parents of kids at private school pay. If you abandon all private funding of certain schools, that £1bn will have to spread over far more kids. By the same token, the more parents that subsidise a better education for their own kids, the less people taking out of the £1bn kitty which leaves more for the less priveliged and a higher standard of education for all. You seem to be suggesting well off parents will continue to pay private fees for their kids to go to state school. Are you?

Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw.

Disgraceful. The way I see it, the more people who can afford to send their kids to private school, the better. Those remaining kids will getter a bigger bite of the state pie so it's a win-win scenario. Doesnt really work like that though does it. It just means that the state schools get less as the people with money ie influence pay for their own kids. Therefore people with money and privelage get better and better off, the poor get increasingly marganilsed and worse off. Sending your kids to private school doesn't leave you exempt from paying taxes. why will state schools get less? Because if the people who have got money to throw at their children have children in the state sector then they are going to be a damn sight more interested in ensuring the state sector provides a decent level of schooling I think you've answered a completely different question.

Because the people who have the influence decide whether that tax goes to the schools. Any government that reduces spending on education or health won't last long.

Disgraceful. The way I see it, the more people who can afford to send their kids to private school, the better. Those remaining kids will getter a bigger bite of the state pie so it's a win-win scenario. Doesnt really work like that though does it. It just means that the state schools get less as the people with money ie influence pay for their own kids. Therefore people with money and privelage get better and better off, the poor get increasingly marganilsed and worse off. Sending your kids to private school doesn't leave you exempt from paying taxes. why will state schools get less?

Why not just imagine the whole thing and save yourself some money? I never said a gig sounds the same. I said "A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage." This suggests that I think a live gig can be better than the CD. In general this is not true for a live theatre version of a film. Kubricks cut from a bone to space station could not be recreated on stage, nor could the sinking of the titanic, the chariot race etc. Smaller scale films might make entertaining viewing on the stage, but it's still basically a bunch of shouty drama queens flaying their arms about and flouncing about the place.

Disgraceful. The way I see it, the more people who can afford to send their kids to private school, the better. Those remaining kids will getter a bigger bite of the state pie so it's a win-win scenario.

How do my restrictions apply to music? The tools at a musicians disposal in a studio are identical to those on stage. I'm lacking imagination because I'd rather see an actual AT-AT, than a bloke walking round like a chicken in an attempt to mime one? These film makers are missing a trick wasting their multi million pound budgets on making the spectacle believable and robbing us punters of using our imaginations.

Having worked hard to give my kids a better go in life why should I be forced to send them to the same trampy school as me? It won't improve state schools because no-one will pay for a state education. In fact it'll stretch an already failing system to breaking point because they can't cope with the numbers. So not only will my kids suffer, but also the tramps who are (at least currently) getting a basic education for nowt. Every kid sould have the same chance at school. Your kids already have an advantage at home with (I asume) caring loving hard working parents, providing assisatance and good role models. All the more reason for kids with bad parents to be given a chance You've avoided my point. If my kids went to their local state school that's another few spaces taken up. Another few kids in the already large class, more kids that the teacher has to spread themself even more thinly across. My kids going to a state school rather than a private one would do more harm to the already disadvantaged kids. (I don't have any kids btw.)

Having worked hard to give my kids a better go in life why should I be forced to send them to the same trampy school as me? It won't improve state schools because no-one will pay for a state education. In fact it'll stretch an already failing system to breaking point because they can't cope with the numbers. So not only will my kids suffer, but also the tramps who are (at least currently) getting a basic education for nowt.

Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it. Well I couldn't disagree more but each to their own I suppose. In 1996 I saw a play called the "Beautiful Game" at the Theatre Royal set in the present about a Newcastle United fan (and us having just lost the title as well). No film could have come close to touching the emotions evoked by it. There's an obvious analogy of it being the difference to listening to a CD or going to a gig - I have always preferred the latter (providing the band can play of course). A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage. In theatre you're relying on backdrops, limited scenery changes and performances whose subtlety is hampered by ensuring everyone can see and hear what's going on no matter where they sit.

Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it.

The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like.

I can do it with sport too. Football is good, ballroom dancing is gay. Or music. Blues is good, trance is gay.

Come on Rob, finish the sentence, you've got to keep your mind active.

Yeah, and Village People are the straightest band in rock. Hmm, says the uber film nerd. Well that's random.

Yeah, and Village People are the straightest band in rock.

The theatre would be too fruity for Graham Norton.

My Dad is a musical embarrassment. We passed the City Hall once on the way to the match and turned round to my mam and said 'we saw a "turn" on in there didnt we?' Beatles, Roy Orbison, Gerry and the Pisstakers et al..... He really doesnt understand music at all. Anyway, another good gig was the Wonderstuff and Darling buds at Riverside for 2 nights sometime in the late 80s. Fugazi and Gaye Bikers were also good around the same time. Smiths at Mayfair were excellent though. As I understand, and some of the lads who were around in the 60's might want to correct me here, you'd get several big bands on the same bill. You'd get to see 3 or 4 bands for very little cost, unheard of today like. Except at Leeds, Glastonbury, Reading, V......

Bryan Adams - St James' Park - 2006

Do you mean you might like them but would rather not go along with a trend, or you'll not pretend to like them just to follow a trend? I presume you mean the latter, but it reads either way. I've got a mate who's refused to buy the last few Cash albums because he's become too popular, and he's shitting himself for when Dylan dies as he won't be able to turn him up loud for fear that the neighbours think he's jumping on the bandwagon. Sad that someone can be so image conscious really.

agreed. Songs such as Mr Tambourine Man and All Along The Watchtower.....classics by other artists to name 2 but terrible by Dylan. I do like Knocking ON Heavens Door and Lay Lady Lay though, and thats about it Disagreed. With Rob because the people who booed him loved his acoustic stuff but just couldn't get past the fact he was constantly growing and trying new things. With LM because to say Dylan's Mr Tambourine Man and All Along The Watchtower were terrible is a joke. The weakness of that wind up doesn't really warrant a response. On the whole, I can understand peoples distain for Dylan's vocals, he is unconventional. Whether an artist's vocals appeal to you or not is down to taste, but the best performers imbue their songs with a feeling that touches you rather than with technical precision, and Dylan does hit the notes. Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Johnny Rotten, Joey Ramone, Johnny Cash, Ian Curtis, Shane MacGowan, Lou Reed and loads of others are in the same vein. I'd rather listen to any of those than a soulless lounge act like Mariah Carey, Cliff Richards or Elton John who sound pleasant and might have one hell of a range but would have me clawing at my ears to try and mute their uninspiring shiny shit.