The Killers: Sam's Town
When I first heard the single release "When You Were Young" I thought it was really good and got me excited enough top buy the album, and after good reviews in Q (4 stars) and knowing that they worked with Flood (U2's 'Achtung baby') and had Anton Corbijn (Designed the cover to 'The Joshua Tree') design the cover, I bought it - and I haven't looked back. The Killers are growing in grandeur, and seem to know where they are going. I can honestly say that the first eight tracks are brilliant and the tracks after that I can't fully recommend - purely on the basis that I have not listened to them as much (I kept flicking back to previous tracks goddamn)
I thought the first album was brilliant, although it took longer to 'get into' in comparison t 'Sam's Town'.
'Bling (Confession of a King)' is a great track to follow on the superb 'When we were young' that, from the moment you hear Brandon Flowers voice you know that he is pushing his voice that little bit further than he did on the 'Hot Fuss'. A personal favourite track on the album 'For Reasons Unknown' shows the variety of Flowers voice. 'Read My Mind' is step down from the speed of the opening few tracks, and 'Uncle Jonny' then shoots you back up to the speed tht you are used to with The Killers.
I don't think I know enough about music to make too many comparison. Enough reviews seem to link Bruce Springsteen with this album (I should really get into Bruce Springsteen then ... ), the bonus track on the UK edition reminds me a little of Marc Bolan though, and U2 is in there somewhere too ...
Editors: The Back Room
The first I heard of 'The Editors' was at The Isle of Wight festival, as there is only one stage there, whatever artist is on, you watch - and 'The Editors' were on and some memory was embedded I my head. Sarah told me she listened to the album at her workplace and she liked it (alongside the 'hint, hint' to me). then I heard that 'The Editors' were also performing at V Festival (Though they were on at the same time as 'Beck' so I missed them) and were also nominated for the Mercury Music Prize. So, they were constantly in my mind and eventually - after taking the hint from Sarah for a present - I personally have only just got round to listening to the album myself and, I have to admit - it is awesome. Originally, 'Munich' was the only track I heard (on the National Mercury Music Prize CD), and that had already won me over.
Stand out tracks are 'Lights', 'Munich', 'Blood', 'Bullets' and 'Distance'. Tom Smith's voice does remind me of another vocalist (Some Eighties guy - Duran Duran? Erasure? A-Ha?)... but nevertheless, it is his voice - and how he sings the songs - that make each track so good!
Bic Runga: Drive
This album was released in 1997, but after buying her second album 'Beautiful Collision', and then seeing her live at V2006, I had to buy this debut album. The first two tracks - 'Drive' and 'Sway' are absolutely beautiful. Her voice simply glides over the acoustic guitars and, after these two tracks (that I am sure most people have heard before)
I won't go on too much about this one because I have been told to cut these down (Jo, Richard, etc), and also this is a pretty old CD - so, quickly, this album is not just for the softly-singing female-voice fans, she also has a very subtle 'rock' edge. I prefer the softer tracks, but you can see the range of vocal talents she has on this one album - obviously, for 'Beautiful Collision' she realised that the softer tracks really are more her thing, but it is a nice debut album that does justice to her.
James Newton Howard: The Village OST/Signs OST
Briefly, these two soundtracks were not bought on a whim (Well, one was). I watched 'The Village' and subsequently bought the DVD and the composer stated how he specifically wanted to use the violinist Hilary Hahn on the soundtrack because she was one of his favourite violinists in the contemporay classical scene. When the DVD showed her play the violin, I realised that this soundtrack stood out because it could stand spearately to the film - unlike many scores that base themselvesa round excactly what happens on screen, this soundtrack uses the violinist to play a part, and bases the soundtrack around her - no doubt Hilary Hahns Violin symbolizes Bryce Dallas Howards character in 'The Village'. Nevertheless, the soundtrack is not set in the order as it is used in the film, so I feel that obviously Howard does want to stand the score out separately from the film. It is a short CD (45mins approx) so it has no tracks that continue for way too long, it consists of the short themes from the film and nothing more.
'Signs' on the other hand is your standard soundtrack - and you will only really like it if you are very fond of the film (As I am), so it brings back the feelings and emotions you felt when watching the film. If anything, it does stand out as a cracking score, but with no knowledge of the film I have a feeling it would simply appear to be the repetetive sticcato strings and big bangs that, in many ways, it is.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Entertainment Review #1 (Part One)
The Departed
I have not seen all the adverts for it (though I do know they are doing some beast campaign, "Scorcese is going for box office figures, not Oscars this time") and I only remembered when Sarah and I were 'umming' over what to see and remembered that it was Martin Scorcese and a remake of Infernal Affairs. Bear in mind though, I personally have not seen Infernal Affairs. Anyway, I though the film was absolutely brilliant - possibly the best film Scorcese has done since Goodfellas. I was not too fond of The Aviator (Though I should really give it another chance) and I liked Gangs of New York alot too, but this is a modern Gangster movie that is just as good as - if not better than - any Tarantino movie. Tarantino does kind of home in on the movie-buff, twenty-something, action-before-thinking type of film watcher. Whereas Martin Scorcese always wants to get the balance so the action/violence is justified - and maybe gives you something to think about afterwards, alongside a film that has a wide spectrum of characters that seem personal to every audience member. The characters are not so-much cliches or cardboard cut-outs, as they al have different sides - as if at any point in the film, their attitude could change direction. The Good guy might actually become the bad guy, the girlfriend will not neccessarily stay with the person she loves. The actors give the characters justice, and Scorcese paints the picture so you have no idea what will happen next. You know characters will have their come-up-ance, but who is going to deliver the fatal blow? and why? I think it has, so far, been my favourite film of the year. 5/5 (Again, note, I have not seen Infernal Affairs...)
House of Flying Daggers
I bought this a while ago after watching it at the cinema, and this second viewing reaffirmed my faith in Zhang Yimou. Every shot could be framed, and maybe shots - one after the other - could be framed to make either a diptych, triptych or simply and huge array of images. I never really realised how the story takes away masculine pride from the film it self - the fact that the two soldiers are constantly so cocky about how they will use the girl and capture the Flying Daggers, and yet, ultimately they both end up being completely controlled by Mai herself. In fact, the only man who actually was 'in the loop' was also the freak who attempting to rape, and successfully kill the innocent 'girl-in-love'. You do not see whether the Flying Daggers are killed - we simply know that they are surpisingly confident and are, therefore, well prepared (Even though the leader has been 'training' at a Brothel for who knows how long), so again, the group that appears to consist solely of women in green dresses no doubt win the day, whereas the men - who begin the film sharpening their even-so-butch knives - kill themselves over love, and consequently, as a group, are unprepared and fall into the Flying Daggers 'trap'.
The visuals are stunning, and the plot itself is very intriuging and has enough sides so that you keep coming back to it. After a fair few watchs, still a 4/5
A History of Violence
I have been told I should watch this for the past year and have had it at the top of my 'rental' list for the last six months, and since being told to watch it, most of the people I know have bought it. This is an awesome film and has got to be watched, but once you have finished watching it, keep an open mind.
Remember it is a film that is more to be reflected upon, rather than a film to entertain you for an hour-and-a-half. I think, after the first watch, you cannot be 100% clear on how good the film is(which, in a way voids my entire praising of 'The Deaprted'), because your first impression will remain as it is until the second watch. The problem is that if you don't like the film, you won't watch it the second time - so it will stay really crap until some huge fan constantly tells you how great it is, leading up to eventually watching it again and realising what the 'fan' was saying. For example, the first time I watched The Matrix Reloaded, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I didn't completely get it and was confused because nothing came to mind that made me think it was crap. The second and third (I really wanted to like it) time I watched it, I still came off thinking 'I kinda like it... but i don't feel like I really get it' - and, if i'm not careful, I might actually think that because (the supreme intellect that I am) if I don't get it, I could argue that the film hasn't been explained very clearly and so it is bad screen writing and bad direction, but I try not to think that - I'd rather assume I am pretty stupid, and have to research it, to 'get' it. Hopefully that makes sense to you (if not, read it again, because you don't get it).
Anyway, after watching A History of Violence, as much as I liked it, I thought alot about the character and his 'arc', and whether he redeemed himself - so I was not sure what to think, but after a brief look on the internet (IMDB no less) I found out that it is about second chances, redemption, family and violence - is it right to be violent? was he right to do what he did? should his family - either one - forgive him? should he have told them the truth? etc. After I found this out, my whole view on the film shifted - and hopefully, when you think about those questions and apply them to yourself and your life, what do you think? Top mark s 5/5
Friends (Series 1 - Series 3)
Briefly, Sarah hasn't seen them so we are rewatching the series. She thought the whole Ross/Rachel relationship was awesome. Favourite episode so far, for Sarah, is when Ross and Rachel broke up - and I think if you don't like the way the programme does drama, than a huge chunk of the ten seasons will never be that good, because the programme makers try and balance the comedy and drama. I personally love the end of Series 6, and the whole Ross, crying when he is saying "those arms, these hands" and he is in tears - I find it all really good. Though I know some people (Jo...) who hate any drama whatsoever in 'Friends' and when any of the guys cry - its lame. Damn you Jo ... anyway, I will tell you how Sarah reacts at the future 'moments' which most normal people actually remember vividly when it was on channel four on a Friday night.
Green Wing (a few episodes of Series 1)
Only watched one episode in full and half another episode and I think it is really good. A bit random, and at 40minutes per episode (one hour on TV with breaks) it does get a bit tedious. comedy has to remin in small, 30minutes bitesize chunks.
Nevertheless, it is really funny simply due to the fact that half of the non-regulars from 'The Office' are in it, alongside Olivia Coleman from 'Peep Show' and the odd girl from 'Smack the Pony'. I think it will just take a little getting used to - and all the slow-motiony bits could be cut down. Well - who knows. I'll make a more informed opinion when I've watched a little more, which I am only so happy to do.
Extras (Series 2)
Ricky Gervais is a God and this second Series is alot better than the first. I remember when I watched the first episode of the second series there was alot less laughs, but that was because there were less jokes, not because it was not so funny. But I think people who watch Extras are split into two categories - people who are laughing at the comedy Gervais has set up, while, at the same time, realising the interesting aspects of the media industry Gervais is trying to illustrat. Then there are others who simply laugh at every joke that the canned laughter (during 'when the whistle blows') laughs along to, while thinking that any 'serious issue' Gervais tackles just takes the comedy to a lower level.
The irony is that the canned laugher, if anything, is showing how shit 'When the Whistle Blows' is - the comedy I find in the show is the embarressing shiteness of the programme - not, say, 'Ching-Chong-Chinaman' as a joke, but the fact that the show steeps down to the lowest form of comedy to get a quick buck - namely, Racism. But, bear in mind that is 'When the Whistle Blows' - Extras, as a programme is still absolutely brilliant.
That Mitchell and Webb Look (a few episodes and excerpts of Series 1)
Okay, I won't lie, I think I had a bit of difficulty watching this first time round. My argument went a little like this: I think Mitchell and Webb don't want to have catchphrases and become a poor mans version of Little Britain, when I personally feel that, in some ways, catchphrases are important to sketch shows, as they keep the audience coming back. People want to see Andy and Lou doing something daft, "I want that one", etc - and people want to see the old man try, in vain to get to his love, until - again - "Bugger". Because Mitchell and Webb are so intent on not having too many catchphrases, they don't have you wanting to come back.
But, then again, I will have to admit there were some highlights - Numberwang, by far is one of the best (possibly because stating random numbers and then stating 'thats Numberwang' is becoming a catchphrase itself, so i could be completely off base with the whole 'catchphrase' argument), BMX Bandit and - God? - is it? (again with the 'I summon a horde of angels' becoming a catchpharse, my argument gets weaker as I type...), Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar and the guy in green with the flute. I also really liked the way they 'film' Mitchell and Webb after they have shot a scene. Really funny.
To be fair, I feel that the more I watch it, the more I will like it - as with many sketch shows.
"Here is a guy buying a house after selling his old one ..."
I think I will have to keep these things that little bit shorter. After a while it is a little too much to read (and write, I don't think anybody really cares about Sarah and I watching Friends...). And I really have to actually do some work ...
I have not seen all the adverts for it (though I do know they are doing some beast campaign, "Scorcese is going for box office figures, not Oscars this time") and I only remembered when Sarah and I were 'umming' over what to see and remembered that it was Martin Scorcese and a remake of Infernal Affairs. Bear in mind though, I personally have not seen Infernal Affairs. Anyway, I though the film was absolutely brilliant - possibly the best film Scorcese has done since Goodfellas. I was not too fond of The Aviator (Though I should really give it another chance) and I liked Gangs of New York alot too, but this is a modern Gangster movie that is just as good as - if not better than - any Tarantino movie. Tarantino does kind of home in on the movie-buff, twenty-something, action-before-thinking type of film watcher. Whereas Martin Scorcese always wants to get the balance so the action/violence is justified - and maybe gives you something to think about afterwards, alongside a film that has a wide spectrum of characters that seem personal to every audience member. The characters are not so-much cliches or cardboard cut-outs, as they al have different sides - as if at any point in the film, their attitude could change direction. The Good guy might actually become the bad guy, the girlfriend will not neccessarily stay with the person she loves. The actors give the characters justice, and Scorcese paints the picture so you have no idea what will happen next. You know characters will have their come-up-ance, but who is going to deliver the fatal blow? and why? I think it has, so far, been my favourite film of the year. 5/5 (Again, note, I have not seen Infernal Affairs...)
House of Flying Daggers
I bought this a while ago after watching it at the cinema, and this second viewing reaffirmed my faith in Zhang Yimou. Every shot could be framed, and maybe shots - one after the other - could be framed to make either a diptych, triptych or simply and huge array of images. I never really realised how the story takes away masculine pride from the film it self - the fact that the two soldiers are constantly so cocky about how they will use the girl and capture the Flying Daggers, and yet, ultimately they both end up being completely controlled by Mai herself. In fact, the only man who actually was 'in the loop' was also the freak who attempting to rape, and successfully kill the innocent 'girl-in-love'. You do not see whether the Flying Daggers are killed - we simply know that they are surpisingly confident and are, therefore, well prepared (Even though the leader has been 'training' at a Brothel for who knows how long), so again, the group that appears to consist solely of women in green dresses no doubt win the day, whereas the men - who begin the film sharpening their even-so-butch knives - kill themselves over love, and consequently, as a group, are unprepared and fall into the Flying Daggers 'trap'.
The visuals are stunning, and the plot itself is very intriuging and has enough sides so that you keep coming back to it. After a fair few watchs, still a 4/5
A History of Violence
I have been told I should watch this for the past year and have had it at the top of my 'rental' list for the last six months, and since being told to watch it, most of the people I know have bought it. This is an awesome film and has got to be watched, but once you have finished watching it, keep an open mind.
Remember it is a film that is more to be reflected upon, rather than a film to entertain you for an hour-and-a-half. I think, after the first watch, you cannot be 100% clear on how good the film is(which, in a way voids my entire praising of 'The Deaprted'), because your first impression will remain as it is until the second watch. The problem is that if you don't like the film, you won't watch it the second time - so it will stay really crap until some huge fan constantly tells you how great it is, leading up to eventually watching it again and realising what the 'fan' was saying. For example, the first time I watched The Matrix Reloaded, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I didn't completely get it and was confused because nothing came to mind that made me think it was crap. The second and third (I really wanted to like it) time I watched it, I still came off thinking 'I kinda like it... but i don't feel like I really get it' - and, if i'm not careful, I might actually think that because (the supreme intellect that I am) if I don't get it, I could argue that the film hasn't been explained very clearly and so it is bad screen writing and bad direction, but I try not to think that - I'd rather assume I am pretty stupid, and have to research it, to 'get' it. Hopefully that makes sense to you (if not, read it again, because you don't get it).
Anyway, after watching A History of Violence, as much as I liked it, I thought alot about the character and his 'arc', and whether he redeemed himself - so I was not sure what to think, but after a brief look on the internet (IMDB no less) I found out that it is about second chances, redemption, family and violence - is it right to be violent? was he right to do what he did? should his family - either one - forgive him? should he have told them the truth? etc. After I found this out, my whole view on the film shifted - and hopefully, when you think about those questions and apply them to yourself and your life, what do you think? Top mark s 5/5
Friends (Series 1 - Series 3)
Briefly, Sarah hasn't seen them so we are rewatching the series. She thought the whole Ross/Rachel relationship was awesome. Favourite episode so far, for Sarah, is when Ross and Rachel broke up - and I think if you don't like the way the programme does drama, than a huge chunk of the ten seasons will never be that good, because the programme makers try and balance the comedy and drama. I personally love the end of Series 6, and the whole Ross, crying when he is saying "those arms, these hands" and he is in tears - I find it all really good. Though I know some people (Jo...) who hate any drama whatsoever in 'Friends' and when any of the guys cry - its lame. Damn you Jo ... anyway, I will tell you how Sarah reacts at the future 'moments' which most normal people actually remember vividly when it was on channel four on a Friday night.
Green Wing (a few episodes of Series 1)
Only watched one episode in full and half another episode and I think it is really good. A bit random, and at 40minutes per episode (one hour on TV with breaks) it does get a bit tedious. comedy has to remin in small, 30minutes bitesize chunks.
Nevertheless, it is really funny simply due to the fact that half of the non-regulars from 'The Office' are in it, alongside Olivia Coleman from 'Peep Show' and the odd girl from 'Smack the Pony'. I think it will just take a little getting used to - and all the slow-motiony bits could be cut down. Well - who knows. I'll make a more informed opinion when I've watched a little more, which I am only so happy to do.
Extras (Series 2)
Ricky Gervais is a God and this second Series is alot better than the first. I remember when I watched the first episode of the second series there was alot less laughs, but that was because there were less jokes, not because it was not so funny. But I think people who watch Extras are split into two categories - people who are laughing at the comedy Gervais has set up, while, at the same time, realising the interesting aspects of the media industry Gervais is trying to illustrat. Then there are others who simply laugh at every joke that the canned laughter (during 'when the whistle blows') laughs along to, while thinking that any 'serious issue' Gervais tackles just takes the comedy to a lower level.
The irony is that the canned laugher, if anything, is showing how shit 'When the Whistle Blows' is - the comedy I find in the show is the embarressing shiteness of the programme - not, say, 'Ching-Chong-Chinaman' as a joke, but the fact that the show steeps down to the lowest form of comedy to get a quick buck - namely, Racism. But, bear in mind that is 'When the Whistle Blows' - Extras, as a programme is still absolutely brilliant.
That Mitchell and Webb Look (a few episodes and excerpts of Series 1)
Okay, I won't lie, I think I had a bit of difficulty watching this first time round. My argument went a little like this: I think Mitchell and Webb don't want to have catchphrases and become a poor mans version of Little Britain, when I personally feel that, in some ways, catchphrases are important to sketch shows, as they keep the audience coming back. People want to see Andy and Lou doing something daft, "I want that one", etc - and people want to see the old man try, in vain to get to his love, until - again - "Bugger". Because Mitchell and Webb are so intent on not having too many catchphrases, they don't have you wanting to come back.
But, then again, I will have to admit there were some highlights - Numberwang, by far is one of the best (possibly because stating random numbers and then stating 'thats Numberwang' is becoming a catchphrase itself, so i could be completely off base with the whole 'catchphrase' argument), BMX Bandit and - God? - is it? (again with the 'I summon a horde of angels' becoming a catchpharse, my argument gets weaker as I type...), Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar and the guy in green with the flute. I also really liked the way they 'film' Mitchell and Webb after they have shot a scene. Really funny.
To be fair, I feel that the more I watch it, the more I will like it - as with many sketch shows.
"Here is a guy buying a house after selling his old one ..."
I think I will have to keep these things that little bit shorter. After a while it is a little too much to read (and write, I don't think anybody really cares about Sarah and I watching Friends...). And I really have to actually do some work ...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Rictus Grin
Briefly,
I am writing this after my half day (well, three periods) at school and I am going back this evening to assist in the open evening. I have loads of 'Observations' to write up too! So, I tell you now, I am only getting this information in now because (a) I have a brief bit of freedom and (b) some of it I found fascinating.
First off, the Rictus Grin. In period 3 today, the group of PGCE students at School A had a lesson together with a teacher who was going to explain classroom management to us. He arrived 30 minutes late because he had to exclude a pupil. What an introduction.
He then proceeded to tell us probably the most fascinating insight into Secondary education I have ever heard. First off, the layout of the classroom:
At the back of the class, you have the noisy pupils (who may/may not do their work, but often know their stuff whenever there is a classroom discussion. The centre 'chunk' of pupils normally can get rowdy, but when they are interested, they get involved and whenever they aren't - they don't get involved. This centre chunk is your standard, average student. Right on the front row you have the pupils that want to look clever - though they are not neccessarily clever. Possibly dumb-asses (Napoleon Dynamite would sit here I would imagine).
Okay, the left and right aisles really depends on where you teach the class. Okay, if you can imagine the white board at the front of the class, in the centre. The teacher will stand on either the right or left hand side when using the board. The pupils closest to him, and the aisle going back, are the worst behaved (from after the second row, because the one student at the front will be quiet and wants to be segragated from the class). These pupils use this space because they can do alot of things and get away with it, because the teacher has his/her back to them. Therefore, the students on the opposite aisle are generally pretty knowledgeable - and towards the back they become more 'social', so they probably know their stuff but don't want to appear to be geeks.
Problem is, I teach Art whereby the class layout is completely different.
Most of us in the class were fascinated - because where ever we came from, whatever school we went to, in classes set out in such a way that was exactly the case. I never even noticed at the time.
Now, the guy spoke so fast we were all writing as much as we could because every single thing he said mattered. This is so far the only point in the course where I wish I had my dictaphone.
The Rictus Grin though is the grin, laugh or smile that a pupil may give after being told off. It is akin to a twitch and it is purely reactive - if a pupil feels scared or embarressed, the automatic emotion is the 'rictus grin' and if you are unaware that it is automatic (rather than a cheeky grin at the teacher or a laugh directly at the teacher) then normally - and if unaware, understandably - you will tell the pupil off again for being cheeky or rude, when that is not to be done. It is an automatic reaction. In many cases it is the alternate reaction before he/she is about to cry. Fascinating stuff.
I am writing this after my half day (well, three periods) at school and I am going back this evening to assist in the open evening. I have loads of 'Observations' to write up too! So, I tell you now, I am only getting this information in now because (a) I have a brief bit of freedom and (b) some of it I found fascinating.
First off, the Rictus Grin. In period 3 today, the group of PGCE students at School A had a lesson together with a teacher who was going to explain classroom management to us. He arrived 30 minutes late because he had to exclude a pupil. What an introduction.
He then proceeded to tell us probably the most fascinating insight into Secondary education I have ever heard. First off, the layout of the classroom:
At the back of the class, you have the noisy pupils (who may/may not do their work, but often know their stuff whenever there is a classroom discussion. The centre 'chunk' of pupils normally can get rowdy, but when they are interested, they get involved and whenever they aren't - they don't get involved. This centre chunk is your standard, average student. Right on the front row you have the pupils that want to look clever - though they are not neccessarily clever. Possibly dumb-asses (Napoleon Dynamite would sit here I would imagine).
Okay, the left and right aisles really depends on where you teach the class. Okay, if you can imagine the white board at the front of the class, in the centre. The teacher will stand on either the right or left hand side when using the board. The pupils closest to him, and the aisle going back, are the worst behaved (from after the second row, because the one student at the front will be quiet and wants to be segragated from the class). These pupils use this space because they can do alot of things and get away with it, because the teacher has his/her back to them. Therefore, the students on the opposite aisle are generally pretty knowledgeable - and towards the back they become more 'social', so they probably know their stuff but don't want to appear to be geeks.
Problem is, I teach Art whereby the class layout is completely different.
Most of us in the class were fascinated - because where ever we came from, whatever school we went to, in classes set out in such a way that was exactly the case. I never even noticed at the time.
Now, the guy spoke so fast we were all writing as much as we could because every single thing he said mattered. This is so far the only point in the course where I wish I had my dictaphone.
The Rictus Grin though is the grin, laugh or smile that a pupil may give after being told off. It is akin to a twitch and it is purely reactive - if a pupil feels scared or embarressed, the automatic emotion is the 'rictus grin' and if you are unaware that it is automatic (rather than a cheeky grin at the teacher or a laugh directly at the teacher) then normally - and if unaware, understandably - you will tell the pupil off again for being cheeky or rude, when that is not to be done. It is an automatic reaction. In many cases it is the alternate reaction before he/she is about to cry. Fascinating stuff.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Morning All ...
Well, I have decided to get up that little bit earlier today (10.30am ... ) and hopefully get my body a little bit back in sync before I have to start another week of school observing.
Last night Sarah and I joined a housemate - Simon - with his friends Mike and Girlfriend. We enjoyed the night but decided at about 11pm that we would escape early. Sarah had been in
London all day and I was just a bit knackered, so I attempted to finish my Guinness and head for the 11.30 bus but, surprise surprise, we missed it and I ate a footlong subway meatball marinara to pass the time. Sarahs a vegetarian, so she wasn't best pleased.
Today, my aim is to type up all my notes from school observing ... this typing now should get me in the mood for a type-a-thon later.
Pretty boring blog today. Apologies.
To compensate I shall put a picture on the page. It is another attempt of getting a profile picture of me ... but one which isn't too big. (It keeps telling me it is too big ...)
Last night Sarah and I joined a housemate - Simon - with his friends Mike and Girlfriend. We enjoyed the night but decided at about 11pm that we would escape early. Sarah had been in
London all day and I was just a bit knackered, so I attempted to finish my Guinness and head for the 11.30 bus but, surprise surprise, we missed it and I ate a footlong subway meatball marinara to pass the time. Sarahs a vegetarian, so she wasn't best pleased.Today, my aim is to type up all my notes from school observing ... this typing now should get me in the mood for a type-a-thon later.
Pretty boring blog today. Apologies.
To compensate I shall put a picture on the page. It is another attempt of getting a profile picture of me ... but one which isn't too big. (It keeps telling me it is too big ...)
Saturday, September 30, 2006
The reason why ...
(Tis Me and Sean - L-R - before we went to Dublin in 2005... Its only there for my 'profile picture')
To begin, I have only caved into this whole blogger thing because this PGCE course is not giving me much chance to do very much other than read and do teaching stuff, so this blog should hopefully give me the chance to explain what i'm up to while I can be a bit more detailed and informative than a passing conversation on msn messenger.
Personally, I find this whole 'blogger' thing a bit strange - which is why I have waited until after the hype. I simply hope that by me having one of these things, if I have posted a 'blog' on the one day and someone asks me how I am I can ust copy and paste a link and that will be enough.
I could also structure alot more clearly my plans for the future, and then look back and see what I have achieved and what-not.
BUT to start and introduce the first recurring character in this blog ...
Sarah: My girlfriend, I am normally typing this in her room because I don't have a PC in my room. We have been together for just over 20 months (I swear I wasn't counting, but she has reminded me of it so much, i might aswell use the information in a more practical way) and aree both on the PGCE course. I am doing Art & Design Secondary PGCE and she is doing a Theatre Secondary PGCE. At the moment we are all in training, but if this is still going on next year I shall endeavour not to get this blog out too much ... I don't want the gossip of the school yard to be about me.
Believe me, there are many more people who e going to crop up (Pete & Rebecca, Tom & Charlotte*, Matt, Sean, Rachel & Richard, Tori, Harper & Tara, Francis, Holly and Jev, Toni, Tall Sarah, Nathan & Katie - who have just moved to Carmarthern so I've heard! - , Jo, Alistair, Beth, Barry & Antoinette, Kaff, Tom Wood & Amy, Lewis and many more) and also my family (consisting of eight members, most of which have respective partners!) who will no doubt make some interesting stories.
I'll also try and fill you up briefly on back stories - IF need be. I have done this kind of thing before, but I typed it out more like a story and it came back five fold on me because people got offended. I shall try not to do that again. So information will only be revealed when neccessary.
Righto, must call Dad (he just left an answer phone message saying to call home... uh oh) and this now marks the beginning, finally, of Simon's Blog.
*Originally was Rebecca. Rebecca on my mind. ... sorry for the mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)