"Yes. Television has definitely got better."

[Clinton Morgan]

William Goldsmith wrote, "nobody knows anything".

[Unnecessary pedantry]William Goldman, Shirley.[/Unnecessary pedantry]
Sorry. Carry on.

Ah thanks for the correction. Was writing from memory and got it wrong. Goldsmith being the composer.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Aren't ignorant football pundits ridiculed/held in contempt for their lack of knowledge though? Wasn't that the basis for all those sketches about Jimmy Hill?

Whereas with comedy, a critic can say 'The Office started as a late-night show which got moved around in the schedules' and never be picked up on it. I know less people care about comedy than they do about football, but that can't be the only reason. After all, less people care about wine than they do about comedy, and yet you're expected to know your stuff if you talk about wine for a living.

Also, with the wine thing, I often wonder why people are content to acknowledge (even if they don't respect) experts. If you only drink ultra-cheap Happy Shopper plonk and think it tastes nice, nobody really has a problem with a wine expert saying 'Ah, you only think it's nice because you've never tried Chateau de Ponce 1923 - here, have a glass, it'll change your life...'

But replace the Happy Shopper wine with The Office and Chateau de Ponce with Spinal Tap, and suddenly it becomes a snobbery issue. A case of 'How dare you say my comedy standards are low? I know what I like, thank you very much'.

[mayer]

The Metro said that Coldplay's lead off single from their last LP was called "Speed Of Light", in a list of singles where a couple more had the wrong name, and seemed to just be half-remembered by a lazy journalist. It happens all the time.

Football pundits are mocked regardless of knowledge, for a variety of reasons.


The sort of people that actually know something about football are not always the type who write comedy sketches about Jimmy Hill. Most sketches about Beckham etc. are written by comedians who don't know the first thing about football, but you let those gags go, I'm sure, as do most people.

If you only drink ultra-cheap Happy Shopper plonk and think it tastes nice, nobody really has a problem with a wine expert saying 'Ah, you only think it's nice because you've never tried Chateau de Ponce 1923 - here, have a glass, it'll change your life...'

If I did and I hated it, and he refused to believe me cos the 1923 is all expensive and he likes it, then sure I'd have a problem with it. Why wouldn't I? If he kept badgering me insisting that really, come on, how can I like <insert wine here>, and not the 1923, I'd think he was honestly barmy.

[mayer]

Back to the football thing, Jimmy Hill is roundly mocked for his affectacious voice, large chin, and formerly bizzare beard.

Most people who take the piss out of him don't know the first thing about his career on or off the field. He changed English football massively, with reagards to wages and whatnot, if I recall correctly, but y'know... Chinny Hill! LoL.

[Ciarán2]

Also, with the wine thing, I often wonder why people are content to acknowledge (even if they don't respect) experts. If you only drink ultra-cheap Happy Shopper plonk and think it tastes nice, nobody really has a problem with a wine expert saying 'Ah, you only think it's nice because you've never tried Chateau de Ponce 1923 - here, have a glass, it'll change your life...'

But replace the Happy Shopper wine with The Office and Chateau de Ponce with Spinal Tap, and suddenly it becomes a snobbery issue. A case of 'How dare you say my comedy standards are low? I know what I like, thank you very much'.

I see what you're saying, but I would question the wine experts expertise. I tend to think we are all experts anyway. Perhaps there is value in the happy shopper wine and The Office. Certainly on the wine issue, it's about whether the ignorant person's appreciation of the cheap wine is accepted or respected by the expert. The expert misses out oin something here too. He gets his pleasure from somewhere else, someone who is satisfied with the cheap stuuf gets pleasure too, perhaps just as much. The expert can no longer get that pleasure from the cheap wine, he must go elsewhere (and pay more, possibly).

There is a value in the consideration that to do whatever you're doing now that you derive pleasure from is the best thing you could be doing at that precise moment. Of course I recognise certain problems in it too, but would you accept this theory at all? Of all the wonderful things you could be doing now, you have decided to sit down and read this messageboard. At this precise moment in time, you make a decision that this is the best thing you could possibly be doing right now.

[Ciarán2]

Somebody reviewing comedy should be well-informed about comedy though, yes?

Or completely ignorant of it. Children can make great music journalists can't they? They can come out with astute philosophical and political statements. They can do this because they are to some extent untroubled by expertise. You can get just as valuable (perhaps a more valuable) opinion on a Dalí painting from someone who's never heard of him than you can from an expert. The expert has been conditioned to look out for certain aspects of the painting, motifs in the painter's work and so on. The completely fresh observer is more likely to say something completely off the map, would you agree?

[MojoJojo]

I guess the problem with T.V. criticism is that for a long time, it's been pointless. You don't need someone to tell you whether something is worth paying for when it's free.  So really, the only reason to read T.V. criticism is to be entertained by it directly - because it is well written and informative, perhaps. Of course, the fact that there is so much criticism which is none of these things could be seen as evidence that it doesn't exist for the readers benefit.

Gah, jumbled thoughts, presented as such.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Children can make great music journalists can't they? They can come out with astute philosophical and political statements. They can do this because they are to some extent untroubled by expertise.

Very occasionally. But on balance, I'd rather hear the views of an expert than the 'refreshing' voice of a child.

I know what you mean about expertise being a kind of cultural baggage - that's true enough. But I wouldn't want to see a TV series on art presented by kids.

[Hans]

The completely fresh observer is more likely to say something completely off the map, would you agree?

Or say "melting clocks?!  Fuck off!" before telling you how great Jack Vettriano is.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I see what you're saying, but I would question the wine experts expertise. I tend to think we are all experts anyway. Perhaps there is value in the happy shopper wine and The Office. Certainly on the wine issue, it's about whether the ignorant person's appreciation of the cheap wine is accepted or respected by the expert. The expert misses out oin something here too. He gets his pleasure from somewhere else, someone who is satisfied with the cheap stuuf gets pleasure too, perhaps just as much. The expert can no longer get that pleasure from the cheap wine, he must go elsewhere (and pay more, possibly).

But that suggests that liking posh stuff is always an affctation. I mean, it often is, of course - oysters used to be considered poor people's food, for example. But, a lot of the time, the 'better stuff' genuinely is better. Posh food isn't so bland.

I suppose it becomes complicated when you start considering the fake and the 'good' stuff as distinct things. I like both fresh tomatoes and I like ketchup, for instance - mainly because I think of them as totally different foods. Same with pianos and keyboards. I like them at different times, and for different reasons.

But do I have the right to scoff at a concert pianist, or an evangelist for fresh tomatoes, and call him a snob? Or should I respect that he knows what he's talking about?

[slim]

But do I have the right to scoff at a concert pianist, or an evangelist for fresh tomatoes, and call him a snob? Or should I respect that he knows what he's talking about?

Yes. Firstly, the concert pianist has no place cricitising the keyboard. Are you saying it somehow has less worth because it came later and does different things?

Secondly, the evangelist can spread the message of good tomatoes all he likes as long as he's not demanding people don't eat ketchup.

You're asking one question, and offering a different answer, or at least being too vague for me to work out what you mean. If the two are saying that they are definitely correct that pianos > keyboards and tomatoes > ketchup, then yes, you should call them a snob.

However, if they're offering an opinion up for you to consider, then you'd have no reason to do so.

[Tokyo Sexwhale]

Back to the football thing, Jimmy Hill is roundly mocked for his affectacious voice, large chin, and formerly bizzare beard.

Most people who take the piss out of him don't know the first thing about his career on or off the field. He changed English football massively, with reagards to wages and whatnot, if I recall correctly, but y'know... Chinny Hill! LoL.

Exactly. Jimmy Hill, by any measure is a football expert.  I was going to list off the top of my head the things he has done, but I'll let wikipedia do it for me:

Jimmy Hill OBE (born Balham, London, July 22, 1928) is a British football personality. His career has taken in virtually every role in football, including player, union leader, coach, manager, director, chairman, television executive, presenter, analyst and even match official.

He has also been responsible for a number of important innovations in the British game:

He has a reputation as an all-round innovator in football - as well as helping to get rid of the maximum wage, he commissioned the first all-seater stadium when at Coventry, and has been credited with the invention of the 3 points for a win system, which was pioneered by the Football Association in 1981. In one of the odder moments of his career, Hill took over from an injured linesman when he had been commentating on a match between Arsenal and Liverpool in 1972.

So, in ELW10's world, Jimmy Hill's opinions would be amongst the most respected.  So why aren't they?  Maybe it's partly to do with his physical appearance and mannerisms, but perhaps it's also because people can make their own minds up when they think he's talking bollocks.

[Ciarán2]

I see what you're saying, but I would question the wine experts expertise. I tend to think we are all experts anyway. Perhaps there is value in the happy shopper wine and The Office. Certainly on the wine issue, it's about whether the ignorant person's appreciation of the cheap wine is accepted or respected by the expert. The expert misses out oin something here too. He gets his pleasure from somewhere else, someone who is satisfied with the cheap stuuf gets pleasure too, perhaps just as much. The expert can no longer get that pleasure from the cheap wine, he must go elsewhere (and pay more, possibly).

But that suggests that liking posh stuff is always an affctation. I mean, it often is, of course - oysters used to be considered poor people's food, for example. But, a lot of the time, the 'better stuff' genuinely is better. Posh food isn't so bland.

I suppose it becomes complicated when you start considering the fake and the 'good' stuff as distinct things. I like both fresh tomatoes and I like ketchup, for instance - mainly because I think of them as totally different foods. Same with pianos and keyboards. I like them at different times, and for different reasons.

But do I have the right to scoff at a concert pianist, or an evangelist for fresh tomatoes, and call him a snob? Or should I respect that he knows what he's talking about?

I don't mean to suggest that it's always an affectation, it's only an affectation in the sense that the taste for the supposedly rubbish things is an affectation. I'd say that you could scoff at the concert pianist but it would be rather unkind and cruel to do so. People who scorn experts are acting in an unskillful way. They should be given a certain respect but also a certain incredulity should be reserved for them. This doesn't really apply to a pianist as such, but when someone claims expertise on say a subject, they must demonstrate this knowledge and share it. So, I think you can equally learn from the supposedly ignorant. I really do, and it seems to me that you certainly do - your critique of television is based on them largely isn't it? you don't wqant to scoff at those who are read up on the facts, on the history of tv broadcasting, and you have a pop at those who do. I can understand that, but it can be kind of counterproductive. When I hear someone likes (a show or a group i hate) I say "great!" and suggest something else which I believe to be better to see what they make of them. It's a hit and miss approach though.

You'd like to see kids to an art show sometimes, wouldn't you? I would. Just once even. Did any of you see Richard and Judy today? They had kids review that Narnia film. It was interesting, and to be honest, kind of horrible to watch.

[chand]

Stewart Lee has a big rant about Jimmy Hill on his stand-up DVD. Not about his chin or his football opinions though, but because he stuck up for Big Ron's 'fucking lazy thick n**ger' comment and said that calling a black person a 'n**ger' is no worse than calling him 'chinny'.

[Go With The Flow]

This topic has become less about Television and more about Tomatoes and Jimmy sodding Hill.

[mayer]

Stewart Lee has a big rant about Jimmy Hill on his stand-up DVD. Not about his chin or his football opinions though, but because he stuck up for Big Ron's 'fucking lazy thick n**ger' comment and said that calling a black person a 'n**ger' is no worse than calling him 'chinny'.

Yup, which was of course stupid as hell (Jimmy, not Stewart). (Not Jimmy Stewart).

The thing was Lalla grasping at someone who isn't an expert being mocked for getting things wrong, picking Jimmy Hill because he remembers some jokes from the playground, and missing the point that Jimmy knows more about football than the vast majority of the people who mock him.

Aren't ignorant football pundits ridiculed/held in contempt for their lack of knowledge though? Wasn't that the basis for all those sketches about Jimmy Hill?

So, to you, Jimmy Hill is ignorant with regards to football (leaving aside race relations), purely because lazy comedians had a pop? Or because "armchair experts" think they know more than him?

Me in the pub disagreeing with Jimmy Hill (when he was on the telly), is the same as some uninformed twat disagreeing with you about comedy.

I'm really confused now.


Wait, gottit. Yes. Again, no, comedy is not exclusive with "scorn" for "experts", not a special case at all.

[mayer]

This topic has become less about Television and more about Tomatoes and Jimmy sodding Hill.

Happy?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I've lost the thread myself, to be honest.

[Neil]

Yay, a much more interesting Television!

[Clinton Morgan]

Or say "melting clocks?!  Fuck off!" before telling you how great Jack Vettriano is.

Ho, ho. That reminds me of an introduction to an article in the Sunday Times by Waldemar Januszczak. He mentioned that Vettriano complains about not being taken seriously by the art galleries. " Well let me help you. Your paintings are awful and more suited to restaurants" being something along the lines of what he wrote.

Don't forget those big red and blue cats and dogs with their beady eyes, Hans.

[TC Raymond]

Ho, ho. That reminds me of an introduction to an article in the Sunday Times by Waldemar Januszczak. He mentioned that Vettriano complains about not being taken seriously by the art galleries. " Well let me help you. Your paintings are awful and more suited to restaurants" being something along the lines of what he wrote.

For what it's worth, I like Jack Vettriano.

So there.

[surreal]

was that really worth bumping a 22-month-old thread for?

[TC Raymond]

was that really worth bumping a 22-month-old thread for?

Possibly not.