Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Turnsky on July 17, 2005, 03:19:39 am
-
really, bless 'im..
Clicky (mp3) (http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3)
-
[color=66ff00]Blinding tune. :lol:
[/color]
-
Bobboau herby condones this service and/or product.
:nod:
-
Brilliant :)
You ought to give a link to the Python site (http://www.pythonline.com/) too though :D
-
That thing has style.
Python is one of the best things to come out of Britain. When the Flying Circus was on, i used to watch every time. The bad thing is that our stupid TV channels don't show much quality British stuff. They don't show Python reruns or anyhing good at all. All we see are the Teletubbies and the Tweenie kids or something like that :ick:
-
Not aimed at the same audience, I'd say :p
-
That's true. But they should still show something, that is not meant for ages 3 and below ;7
-
One of the few things that are awsome that came out of Britain are: Monty Python and Australia.
:D
And ROFL, LMAO @ that song!
-
Originally posted by Grug
One of the few things that are awsome that came out of Britain are: Monty Python and Australia.
:D
And ROFL, LMAO @ that song!
You really do enjoy pimping stuff, don't ya, ya big :thepimp:
-
:nervous:
<.< >.>
-
How is he different from Michael Savage?
Honest question, not trying to start a flame war.
-
Because he's funny as hell.
-
Great stuff. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
How is he different from Michael Savage?
Honest question, not trying to start a flame war.
Well let's see... first, when Eric Idle is an ass its called "parody" or "satire". Why? Because he's a comedian. I'd say that makes him very different from Savage just on the surface.
Second, when Eric Idle complains that the federal government will fine you more for offenses of taste (uttering "FUCK" on the radio or showing a nipple on television) than they have fined certain radio DJs for breaking the actual law*, he's stating a fact, not an opinion. He's not calling them evil nazi-loving liberal swines. He's saying they're completely bass-ackwards in the way they enforce laws and regulations.
Third, when Idle points out that Martha Stewart gets put in jail for securities fraud (okay, for perjury, but perjury over securities fraud) but lets Halliburton (who has provably been cheating the federal government out of not millions, but BILLIONS of dollars on bogus invoicing, according to the Federal governments own General Accouting Office) go unmolested--nay, not unmolested, rewarded further with more contracts and nary a slap on the hand or stern word uttered--well, I'd say again, Idle's adherence to the facts, rather than declaring the opposition to be freaky, pinko socialist liberals makes him a touch different.
The rest of the song is just purely silly namecalling, which, given Eric Idle's profession is what one might call a 'job responsibility'.
I'd say these things make him very, very different from Mr. Savage. Savage holds himself out as an expert regularly (listen to his radio program). His record, however, shows his only expertise being environmental science, medical botany and anthropology. The same record also shows a rather telling anti-islamic prejudice of a frightening degree. By placing himself in the role of expert, not the role of comedian, he makes himself immensely different from the likes of Idle.
*the FCC neither makes nor enforces laws. Showing a nipple or uttering curses on broadcast television violates a regulation and carries no criminal penalties. Further, no court is involved in the creation or enforcement of these regulations. On the other hand, tramping around town and paying people to write you prescriptions for drugs so you can get your fix is a violation of several criminal and civil laws, no matter where you are in the US. Which one of these will net you a higher cash payment to the Federal Government though? If you said 'breaking the law!', you'd be wrong. The real answer is 'showing an unsanctioned nipple on television'. Somehow, I think that's rather an upside-down management of penalties.
-
Incidentally, is this (http://montypythondirect.com/product_information.asp?PRODUCT=ADPYA013&TYPE=Evensillierstuff&index=10&total=10) not the best thing ever?
-
Eric rules! that was too funny! :lol: :yes:
-
:eek2:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
[snip]
I'm not challenging any of that. I'd just like to point out a few things:
1) Both Eric Idle and Michael Savage take it for granted that their audience accepts what they say as already proven. They don't argue or persuade, they preach to the choir.
2) Both of them get their point across by sprinking a few choice facts among a sea of name calling. In general, people who disagree with them focus more on the name calling than the facts.
3) Both are successful people who have a large following.
Yet Eric Idle is called "funny as hell" and Michael Savage is called a "bigoted, racist ****" (to pick on aldo).
-
Could it be because Eric Idle doens't do it to push a political agenda, whereas Savage does? ( :rolleyes: )
Edit: I hadn't listened to it at this point.
I have now. And... yeah. It's a grey area. >.>
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I'm not challenging any of that. I'd just like to point out a few things:
1) Both Eric Idle and Michael Savage take it for granted that their audience accepts what they say as already proven. They don't argue or persuade, they preach to the choir.
2) Both of them get their point across by sprinking a few choice facts among a sea of name calling. In general, people who disagree with them focus more on the name calling than the facts.
3) Both are successful people who have a large following.
Yet Eric Idle is called "funny as hell" and Michael Savage is called a "bigoted, racist ****" (to pick on aldo).
It's all a question of phraseology; Idle is first and foremost a comedian (and a damn good one). He's not insulting people to hammer home some sort of point, he's doing it because it's funny in a twisted way. If you asked him for a serious, political opinion I have no doubt he'd give you one in a well-phrased, intellectual way; he wouldn't resort to the equivalent of 'islamofacist'.
You can't compare a comedic song to something masquerading as a serious statement. It's simply not fair or valid.
-
I think that has a humourous song, this thing kind of misses the point. I've heard a lot worse, and I do think it's funny.
It isn't a serious political statement, as far as I noticed. Therefore, the debate is invalid.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
I think that has a humourous song, this thing kind of misses the point. I've heard a lot worse, and I do think it's funny.
It isn't a serious political statement, as far as I noticed. Therefore, the debate is invalid.
personally i just think it was poking fun at things in general..
" "Here’s a little song I wrote the other day while I was out duck hunting with a judge… It’s a new song, it’s dedicated to the FCC and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars.""
- Eric Idle
-
And on the same subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4685415.stm
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I'm not challenging any of that. I'd just like to point out a few things:
1) Both Eric Idle and Michael Savage take it for granted that their audience accepts what they say as already proven. They don't argue or persuade, they preach to the choir.
2) Both of them get their point across by sprinking a few choice facts among a sea of name calling. In general, people who disagree with them focus more on the name calling than the facts.
3) Both are successful people who have a large following.
Yet Eric Idle is called "funny as hell" and Michael Savage is called a "bigoted, racist ****" (to pick on aldo).
Yes. Because Eric Idle is being funny. Savage is a pushing his political agenda. Comedy != Political Agenda. Comedian != Political trendmaker.
Looking to Idle for serious political commentary is about as useful as asking an actor or athlete. Sure, they can have political opinions, but if you're getting your political information from a comedian, athlete or actor, you've got problems. I reference you back to John Stewart's commentary on Crossfire.
If I really thought that Idle was pushing a serious political agenda there, I'd consider this to be almost as bad as Savage. In that case, Idle's only saving grace is that he's not a racist bigot (and yes 'racist bigot' is a description of anyone who calls for hating someone for their racial stock, as Savage does regularly on his show).
-
"hating someone for their racial stock"
realy? I've listened to his show a bunch of times, I don't think he has ever atacked anyones ethnicity. hmm the show's on right now, now that I think of it.
-
http://www.971talk.com/streaming/index.aspx
he's useing Churchill.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If I really thought that Idle was pushing a serious political agenda there, I'd consider this to be almost as bad as Savage.
So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?
It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.
-
it's what the main poitnt is, are you trying to make a joke useing politics, or make politics useing a joke. do you see the diference between the two?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?
It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.
Ever heard of satire? If that was considered pushing a political agenda, 90% of BBC2s comedy programming* would be off air.
*slight exaggeration
I don't know how prevelant political comedy is in the US (although I suspect nowadays it'd be called 'unpatriotic' or some crap), but there's a fundamental difference between making a joke and trying to hammer an opinion into someone else. For one thing, what Savage 'does' - and any political commentator - is suppossed to have factual basis (whether it does or not is a debated issue AFAIK). On the other hand, comedy is evaluated based on its comedic value.
Incidentally, I peeked up the wikipedia entry on Savage, and I guess this is (part) of the reasoning for the racism charge; http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140003
I'm somewhat glad that the UK seems to be free of this sort of (on either side) extremist bollocks, where political affiliation (the whole liberal/conservative thing) is adopted as an insult. Maybe it's (the lack of fairly far left or right wing books on politics) partly due to the fact our PM is placed under more direct questioning than the US leader, or simply because we're a smaller country.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?
It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.
Ah, but when's the last time you heard Idle say 'Go an vote for candidate X'. Hint you haven't. Even if you have, I'm willing to bet it was not on stage/air during an act. He's a satirist, a comedian. A comedian can talk about politics (and indeed should, since its a great source of humor).
Savage regularly tells you who to vote for and who not to. He's not making jokes. He's dead serious. He even tells you he's dead serious.
The point is, Goob, that Idle and Savage determine who is cracking jokes and who is pushing an agenda. Their actions (or lack thereof) and their statements are indeed the way you tell. Eric Idle makes fun of the FCC and takes some potshots at the powers that be in Washington as a humorist and its funny/cute. When Savage and Limbaugh and the like took shots at the Clinton White House, however, it was politically motivated. They weren't making fun; they were trying to effect rally the troops--they even claim this to be so. If that doesn't make the delineation clear, I don't know what will. I'll leave the rest for others.
-
Satire isn't satire unless it's making a real political or social point. Nobody composes satire with political views other than his or her own; Eric Idle may be funny, but you can't tell me his message isn't genuine.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Nobody composes satire with political views other than his or her own
If you were to watch (for example) Bremner, Bird & fortune over a protracted period of time, it becomes obvious that isn't right; that aformentioned programme(and specifically Rory Bremner) 'attacks' every side of the political spectrum.
-
That only means that their political views line up against multiple regions of the spectrum. They're still expressing genuine opinions that relate to politics, as opposed to simply being funny. Pure comedy cannot be agreed or disagreed with.
-
If you look at the definition of satire, it doesn't imply political (or indeed for any subject) bias. What does imply (or lead to the possibility) bias is the choice of what the satire highlights; but that also means an individual can choose to select the topic of the satire based on comedic value (and probably with a view to equality so as not to annoy the regulators).
Also, IMO there's an arguement that true satire is only based upon (in a foundation-for-the-joke sense) factual observance, and thus this limits the scope for personal opinion (but not personal interpretation, of course).
-
satire.
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Any paradigm that is deconstructed, be it political, social, or whatever else, and for whatever reasons, is always going to have opponents and defenders. Because one person's "human vice or folly" is always going to be someone else's human triumph, satire is by definition biased. People who support the FCC will not identify with Eric Idle's satire, regardless of how funny he intended it to be. I wouldn't say that Michael Savage is an equivalent on the other end of the spectrum, but neither one has universal appeal, by any stretch of the imagination.