Sunday, June 15, 2008
Still trying
Tried to impale the water filter on the kettle prong three times this morning before working out why it was not working. Things are getting better all the time.
On the other hand completely foxed by yesterday's recycling puzzle from the council. What do you do with a drinking chocolate container, clearly marked as recycleable, made in approximately equal parts of plastic (lid), cardboard (body) and tin plate (base). Mistakes punished by four weeks withdrawal of bin emptying services. Presumably the more modern dust carts are equipped with on-board laptops and cameras linked back to the environmental services headquarters underneath Nonsuch Park so that they can keep track of such things. Enter 1 for a display in Polish.
And a more taxing puzzle for those taking their NVQ in social studies at the university of the beard age. Explain (using not more than one keyboard at a time) why the theatrical industry does not achieve the level of excellence of the football industry with particular reference to the continuing ability of the former to find house room for nonentities? There are some similarities. There are maybe a couple of thousand people earning their living on the boards and maybe the same number on the turf. Both professions are very selective with a very high drop out rate among the young hopefulls; very well paid at the top of the heap and very badly paid at the bottom of the heap. Both professions are full of big egos and dodgy private lives. Both big luvvies and big footballers appear on TV commercials. Both industries used to depend on getting bums on seats (or at least, feet on stands), although I imagine that football now get more dosh from collateral activities like selling clothes, modelling and TV rights. The luvvies have not really succeeded in those departments. The footballers get much bigger audiences and the turnover of the footballers is much bigger. Other things being equal, this should mean that they can afford better management and support services. Against this background, it is alleged that survival in the theatrical world depends more than it should on coming from, being married or partnered into a theatrical family, networking and greasy pole rather than grease paint skills. I very much doubt if this is true in the football world. You might get a trial on the basis of being baby Beckham but you won't get much further unless you are good. Perhaps this is a consequence of success being very clear cut in the world of football. Either the team won or it did not and there is not - in so far as I am aware - all that much dispute about who in the team contributed the most. Although there is, I believe, a differance between simply winning and being entertaining; theatrical skills do not go for nothing on the football field. But football failure is punished. A manager does not carry his favourites if they are not performing. Whereas a play can be a success without making any money. Some performance in an empty shed somewhere in West London can attract very cuddly reviews from the Guardian, reviews which can be very career enhancing for those involved. And serious theatre is, I believe, fairly heavily subsidised either by sugar daddies or by government; with living on subsidy corrosive, just as living on the social is. On could go on for ages.
Borrowed my second book from the Tooting Witherspoons the other day. An entertaining guide to the perils of playing in amateur string quartets, written by a couple of Germans (Aulic & Heimeran) back in 1936. Which reminded me that to be an amateur of something used to be praiseworthy rather than blameworthy. To love something worthy was worthy; more so than being involved in something worthy in a professional capacity, for filthy lucre. In the days, perhaps, when gentlemen ranked above players. Maybe a link here to the cult of excellence. Once upon a time one was happy enough to grow pumpkins, to be an amateur pumpkin grower, with the reward being the activity rather than the product. Now we are all too aware of the superior skills of the professional TV pumpkin grower and much more focussed on the product. I get depressed and stop growing my pumpkins because they pale into insignificance beside his. With amateur getting its bad name in consequence. Everything has to be best - which is clearly a nonsense. Must move back from product and think about process.
On the other hand completely foxed by yesterday's recycling puzzle from the council. What do you do with a drinking chocolate container, clearly marked as recycleable, made in approximately equal parts of plastic (lid), cardboard (body) and tin plate (base). Mistakes punished by four weeks withdrawal of bin emptying services. Presumably the more modern dust carts are equipped with on-board laptops and cameras linked back to the environmental services headquarters underneath Nonsuch Park so that they can keep track of such things. Enter 1 for a display in Polish.
And a more taxing puzzle for those taking their NVQ in social studies at the university of the beard age. Explain (using not more than one keyboard at a time) why the theatrical industry does not achieve the level of excellence of the football industry with particular reference to the continuing ability of the former to find house room for nonentities? There are some similarities. There are maybe a couple of thousand people earning their living on the boards and maybe the same number on the turf. Both professions are very selective with a very high drop out rate among the young hopefulls; very well paid at the top of the heap and very badly paid at the bottom of the heap. Both professions are full of big egos and dodgy private lives. Both big luvvies and big footballers appear on TV commercials. Both industries used to depend on getting bums on seats (or at least, feet on stands), although I imagine that football now get more dosh from collateral activities like selling clothes, modelling and TV rights. The luvvies have not really succeeded in those departments. The footballers get much bigger audiences and the turnover of the footballers is much bigger. Other things being equal, this should mean that they can afford better management and support services. Against this background, it is alleged that survival in the theatrical world depends more than it should on coming from, being married or partnered into a theatrical family, networking and greasy pole rather than grease paint skills. I very much doubt if this is true in the football world. You might get a trial on the basis of being baby Beckham but you won't get much further unless you are good. Perhaps this is a consequence of success being very clear cut in the world of football. Either the team won or it did not and there is not - in so far as I am aware - all that much dispute about who in the team contributed the most. Although there is, I believe, a differance between simply winning and being entertaining; theatrical skills do not go for nothing on the football field. But football failure is punished. A manager does not carry his favourites if they are not performing. Whereas a play can be a success without making any money. Some performance in an empty shed somewhere in West London can attract very cuddly reviews from the Guardian, reviews which can be very career enhancing for those involved. And serious theatre is, I believe, fairly heavily subsidised either by sugar daddies or by government; with living on subsidy corrosive, just as living on the social is. On could go on for ages.
Borrowed my second book from the Tooting Witherspoons the other day. An entertaining guide to the perils of playing in amateur string quartets, written by a couple of Germans (Aulic & Heimeran) back in 1936. Which reminded me that to be an amateur of something used to be praiseworthy rather than blameworthy. To love something worthy was worthy; more so than being involved in something worthy in a professional capacity, for filthy lucre. In the days, perhaps, when gentlemen ranked above players. Maybe a link here to the cult of excellence. Once upon a time one was happy enough to grow pumpkins, to be an amateur pumpkin grower, with the reward being the activity rather than the product. Now we are all too aware of the superior skills of the professional TV pumpkin grower and much more focussed on the product. I get depressed and stop growing my pumpkins because they pale into insignificance beside his. With amateur getting its bad name in consequence. Everything has to be best - which is clearly a nonsense. Must move back from product and think about process.
# posted by Jim @ 12:17 AM 
