SAINT ETIENNE – “Popular”
Huge weepy thanks to Bob, Pete and Sarah for immortalising us in song. And thanks to commenters past and present for making it worth immortalising.
10
Tom in Popular • featured content • 4,567 views
Popular
21 May 2012
Comments 
All, 1–25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–124.
Back up to post. More comments: All, 1–25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–124.
@73, Punctum. How about you write how you wanna write, and I’ll write how I wanna write? I agree that ‘Pop’s Killer Years’ is a daft expression – I wish I hadn’t used it – but the idea that some years’ #1s are full of riches and some aren’t is uncontroversial surely.
“Avoid splitting infinitives.” That’s the one rule that is likely to survive when all the rest of grammar has withered away. … Most of the best grammarians have recognized the split-infinitive rule for the flimflam that it is. H. W. Fowler described people who followed the rule as “bogey-haunted creatures … Whose aversion springs not from instinctive good taste, but from tame acceptance of the opinion of others.”
—Geoffrey Nunberg, American linguist, The Way We Talk Now, 2001
#75: tbh I find people’s favourites, and the way they write about them, far more interesting than the usual dreary rote list some people seem to prefer where OF COURSE Sinead is the best #1 of 1990 (but WHY?) and OF COURSE Bo Rhap/Rising Sun/someone ring Ronan Keating to sing me out of my coma (had I
not been persona non grata at the Guardianbeen asked to contribute I probably would have gone for “Life Is A Rollercoaster” for 2000 but can’t argue with “Bound 4 Da Reload”).I like the idea of “Space Oddity” and “The Model” sounding equally, or more, futuristic at the time of their reissue. Also Tim Jonze’s comparison of “We Are Young” to Arcade Fire is spot on and hadn’t occurred to me before. Lots to think about, which is the point.
#76 – as my Moral Philosophy tutor told me, never say “surely”; it implies there is no alternative to your argument, furthermore suggests that argument is evidential fact rather than perspective. The “idea that some years’ #1s are full of riches and some aren’t” exists for political and demographic purposes; as demonstrated countless times here, the argument doesn’t stand up at all. The number one arena has always been a bazaar where tat jostles for space with art – and frequently one flows into the other – and doesn’t really have anything to do with year or age divisions.
About split infinitives, (a) not all of us, or indeed any of us, are Gene Roddenberry, and (b) as Tony Oxley once told me, you have to learn the rules first so that you know how to break them.
Commenting on the split infinitive will inevitably be tossing gasoline onto an electric heater, but my little bookshelf of professional styleguides basically confirms the line that wikipedia (currently) takes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#Current_views
viz.
i: that the habit is old
ii: that if there is not strictly a rule per se there is EXTREMELY widespread belief in a rule
iii: that the “rule” has little “logical” basis (insofar as this means anything) (essentially it means that english is not morphologically derived from latin, and it’s not logical to argue that it is)
iv: that the “rule” was strongly enforced in the 19th century (with the effect that a practice from the middle ages that had declined was revived, and converted into an absolute)
v: and that the best duty of the editor or sub-editor is to (a) avoid if possible; (b) deploy when unavoidable
vi: hence pragmatism and tact are your guides, along with ears for rhythm and the subtleties of meaning-via-word-order
Thus Fowler (writing in 1926); Partridge (writing in 1947); Gower (writing in 1948); the Cambridge Handbook to Copy-Editing (first pub.1975); and the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (1993).
Gower probably explores the question best in the revised version of Plain Words: that he had formerly taken the pragmatic position (“best avoid by rewriting, though there is no actual rule: be careful you don’t distort the meaning if you do re-order,” in rough paraphrase), and a friend had pointed out he was being a massive coward. If the rebel position is “dispense with the rule”, and you choose to consider yourself a rebel, then DISPENSE WITH THE RULE.
Given this exemplary line-up of big-name grammarians — and given the absence of of a genuine grammatical reason for its not being split — I’m tempted to suggest that the anti-splittists have always actually been the rebels, and that this prescription exists vox populi vox dei.
In other words, I too am sat on the fence — and practically speaking I tend to rewrite, unless I really can’t see a way round it, or (much more unusually) the context is somehow enriched by the feel that comes with a split. (The poetic value of a rule being the effect of breaking it…)
my editorial rule was to go along with whatever causes the least friction, i.e. detract the least – where detraction would include “letters to the editor”. however applying such a nebulous rule on an internets would lead to a never-posting paralysis
#77 A thought: does the distinction between “favourite” and “best” even make any sense? How often do you find yourself saying: “This is not my favourite record, but it is the best”? If you do say that, what standard are you using to decide what is “best”? From that point of view, I can completely sympathise with the Guardian subs who used the two words interchangeably. And either way it’s a good list, as you say.
#78 I always think wistfully about Raymond Chandler, who supposedly changed back an editor’s correction with the comment: “When I split an infinitive, goddamn it, I split it so it stays split.” Not many of us have the chops, or the nerve.
The distinction between “favourite” and “best” comes out in the reactions, I think. It’s fascinating how people read stuff about the process into the words – one tweet, for instance, was incredulous because “The Guardian has voted Cher Lloyd the best number one of 2011″ – it’s hard to imagine the idea of a vote creeping in if “favourite” had been used, and actually it would be quite unusual to imagine a collective entity having a favourite.
So there’s no distinction between F and B on an individual level maybe, but at a publication level differences start to emerge – a collective best need not be everyone’s favourite (or even ANYONE’S, though I think most publications would cheat to avoid that outcome)
I dunno, an individual can objectively choose a ‘best’ and yet subjectively choose a ‘favourite’.
#81 Good point: put enough subjective opinions together, and they become objective.
From languagelog:
“Every decent guide to grammar and usage on the market agrees that the split infinitive is grammatical and often preferably to all other alternatives. Look it up! Don’t take my word for it. Go to a library and take in your hand what appears to you to be a comprehensive, high-quality reference work on English usage. See what it says. There just aren’t any that insist the split infinitive is always ungrammatical and should never appear in writing.”
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002054.html
#82 So how do you step outside yourself to choose a best “objectively”? When people say that, don’t they usually mean “this is what other people like” or “this is what I think I ought to like”?
I suppose one way to draw a distinction would be when a song has particular personal associations – happy memories, whatever – that make you feel differently about it from how you would if you were approaching it for the first time. I guess you might want to distinguish between favourite and best because your reactions are bound up with your specific emotions and history, which inevitably most other people are not going to share.
IIRC, though, not many writers on that Guardian list reach for those kinds of personal justifications for their choices.
Well, it’s like saying you like “SwagJag” more than “Nevermind I’ll find” while ‘recognising’ that the latter is the better ‘piece of work’.
“A while back I was very low
When this guy said I had to go
Up town to Constitution Hill
“There I found some people having fun
Cheering the UK’s number one
Oh boy, I felt such a thrill
“All I want to talk about is Brenda, Brenda
All I want to hear about is Bless Her, Bless Her
One crown, one time, and she’s come back again
And again
And again
And again
“All I want to talk about is Lizzie, Lizzie
All I want to hear about is Queenie, Queenie
One crown, one time, and she’s come back again
And again
And again
And again
“There’s Chaz
Camilla Parker-Bowles
Here’s Kate
And William in their Rolls
Harry, the question of the team
“The old Greek
Perhaps he is a Dane
Has gone and pissed
Himself again
Leaving once more
The Mighty Queen
“All I want to talk about is Brenda, Brenda
All I want to hear about is Bless Her, Bless Her
One crown, one time, and she’s come back again
And again
And again
And again
“All I want to talk about is Lizzie, Lizzie
All I want to hear about is Queenie, Queenie
One crown, one time, and she’s come back again
And again
And again
And again…”
Jimmy the Swede’s comment easily the most interesting and entertaining one of this bunch. Otherwise, apropos Raymond Chandler, not everyone had the education he had (Dulwich College) as well as the guts, and part of my long-term mission is to set the question: “does the presence of ‘favourite’ require the existence of ‘best’”?
Well, we need a poll, someplace (can’t think where..)
“Which one of these is best?”
Raindrops on roses
whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles
warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
Cream colored ponies
crisp apple strudels
Doorbells
sleigh bells
schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with a moon on their wings
Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
(and, for the wilfully perverse:)
Dog bites
Bee stings
Feeling sad
#86 I don’t think SLY is better though! I can see why people do but that’s not going to make me use the b-word about it.
No, but then again you might think one of the other number-ones were ‘objectively better’.. Anyways, next oop:
#89 – The Swede vote, not surprisingly, would go to… Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes!!
At the very bottom would be the ridiculous schnitzel with noodles, simply because you don’t eat schnitzel with noodles, for heaven’s sake (well, certainly Austrians don’t). It’s another of your split infinitives..
As I am sat at home waiting for a delivery of blue vinyl floor tiles, with
plentynothing better to do, I looked this up! Turns out that Germans and Austrians DO sometimes eat schnitzels with spätzle or spaetzle — which is indeed a kind of southern teutonic noodle (either as gnocchi or vermiform). There is much debate whether this practice predates the song however.What, they heard Julie Andrews and thought “that sounds like an idea worth trying” ? Naah…
Re 92: I’ll second that, though if the choice had included chicken escalope with spaghetti (and bolognese sauce)* it might have won out. Schnitzel and noodles being an Austrian variation, I imagine.
*Alpino on Chapel Market is the best/my favourite cafe for this winter warmer.
#93 – I am grateful to my Rt Hon friend. I certainly remember Oscar Hammerstein being mocked for this line by some haughty teutonic, who made the point I made, only in a much ruder tone. It is thus possible that Julie Andrews was responsible for the adoption of the black art of noshing noodles with schnitzel and that the Austrians and Bavarians have never forgiven her. Or perhaps the arrogant Oscar-baiter was simply talking shite.
Spatzle is crunchy deep fried noodles isn’t it? As such I have concluded that everything in Austria is deep fried apart from “buttery rolls” (as per all chalet school books).
#95 the chicken escalope toasted sandwiches you can get at Cafe Uno on TCR are pretty darned great too, although apologies obv for sandwiches being OT.
They don’t look very deep-fried in the google images I’ve found of jaeger schnitzel and spaetzle. In fact they look soggy.
The internet tells me that spatzle means “little sparrows” so stick THEM in your deep fryer and er tweet it.
I bloody love this site!
To return to one of the many slightly less O/T discussions:
A very well established British film monthly recently invited its critics and reviewers — as well as a large number of bigwigs across the industry — to participate in its newest ten-yearly poll of the “Ten Greatest Films of All Time”, a very long-running project. They are careful not to be dogmatic about the definition of “greatest” — as the guidelines put it:
“As for what we mean by ‘Greatest’, we leave that open to your interpretation. You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.”
That encourages contributors to cut across and perhaps distinguish three different qualities, I think: is this important? is this good? does this mean a lot to me? The first looks at something’s place in a broader history — the second at the way something handles the tasks it has set itself — and the third begins to approach (but is not quite the same as) a purely personal response. As a rubric, this — to me — hints at the idea that they would love people to be perverse, without saying so out loud. Because if the poll ends up crowning the same set of films as it did last time, that’s a bit boring (and hence counter-productive for the magazine).
On the whole, I tend to think “historically important” delivers the least interesting polls, because voters will end up second-guessing a result very largely outside their input, with much-too-potent reversion to mean, and worrying about “standing the test of time” (zzzz) and “influence” (grrrr) and other dreary factors. But a poll that strongly emphasises “unexpected private pleasures” risks having a vast pool of hundreds entries with a single vote, and runaway winners with just four votes, or whatever. So I think the unclarity of definition — the fact that some vote to this convention, others to that, and so on — does actually make for more thought-provoking polls, precisely because the wrinkles sometimes create more unplanned run-off than monolithic affirmation.
From a magazine editor PoV, the purpose is in the end to deliver interesting writing and reading in coming months, rather than to sum up all culture and switch off the lights. An element of trolling is essential: too much from too many people cancels itself out.
Well, it’s certainly no coincidence that “Citizen Kane” and “Bambi” were produced only a year apart. I keep forgetting which one Rosebud was in. It’s uncanny.
Is that the one where Walt Disney shot Orson Welles’s mother?
It is the most important moment in cinema history.
until Hannibal Lecter ate Dougal’s daughter’s face
Bambi’s mother turns up at Xanadu at the end: “Don’t be too hard on the boy. He was most upset at my funeral.”
Surely the most important moment in cinema history is when Orson is hunting a terrified and trapped Bambi through the sewers of post-war Vienna. I wonder if the Austrians eat noodles with venison?
#106 – Cobb, Arrival.
@101. Roger Ebert wrote about his 5th time participating in the Sight and Sound poll you describe here, if you’re interested. He felt a lot of wholly internal pressure to have changed at one film in his top-10 list since the last poll. Perhaps private existential terrors aren’t so different from those felt by the Magazine Editor.
2001 a “stand-along monument”? Standing alongside what?
2002
The Guardian has a vid. of a live session with Sarah Cracknell and co (but not Bob or Pete) doing a very nice, new song (temp-named) Jan Leeming. Highly recommended.
Some suitably sublime digressions here on the thread that celebrates the song that celebrates the website that celebrates … etc.
Anyway, just in case anybody involved might ever read this, hearty congratulations on a hugely enjoyable evening with St Etts at the Palladium last night. Sarah clearly loved every moment of it, even (especially?) when fluffing the lyrics. Never been to a gig that seemed so much like a party – marvellous to be there. And “Popular”, complete with TOTP chart rundowns from ’75 and ’76 on the backdrop, was obviously the highspot.
And yes, Mike TD, I got the teatowel too.
So annoyed I couldn’t make it for the supremely rock’n'roll reason of a School Governors meeting.
(left hand) The chance to hear YOUR NAME in a song performed on the stage of the London Palladium; (right hand) what to do next time Ofsted come calling. Couldn’t you have phoned in sick?
Tomorrow’s our day at Wimbledon. We’ve got tickets for Court One and the weather forecast is not good. Whilst Cliff will be breaking into song from the Royal Box on Centre as they roll the roof on, do you suppose St Etts might be persuaded into entertaining the folk over the border until the rain stops, since we ain’t got a roof?
I was subbing for the chair who has cancer. His sicknote trumped mine.
Sorry to hear that Pete – best wishes to him.
The Swede had a great day at the tennis last Thursday. Whilst waiting for madam outside the loo under the big screen (Henman Hill), an oldish fellow in a club blazer approached. I leapt up immediately and offered my hand, which he took. I mumbled something about him being one of the great ones and he graciously thanked me before going on his way.
It was John Newcombe.
@101 An excellent answer to the “what is the greatest?” problem: http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/video-sight-sound-film-poll-ignatiy-vishnevetsky-on-how-to-make-a-random-top-ten-list#.T_Z0QnkXiSo
I’ve been meaning to say, this lot were fvcking great at Primavera in Porto last month. It had been a miserable saturday up to that point due to huge downpours (I go to european festivals to get away from these wretched conditions ffs!), and they really turned it around & made everyone forget the weather & start having fun again.
The new songs sounded great, too. Cheers guys!
Since this entry gives us a sneaky backdoor to talk about current music, and since the song in question isn’t bunny-bait quite yet… I thought I would note that last night, for the first time, I found myself buying a track on iTunes just to see what Tom writes about it here in a decade’s time.
re Ed in June @81 (tardy, moi?) – ‘put enough subjective opinions together they become objective’…..
‘The good does not exist, like that, in an atemporal sky. The good is defined by us, it is practised, it is invented. And this is a collective work.’ – Foucault (pretentious, moi?)
Apart from anything else its a lovely bit of phrasing and rhythm, even in translation (OK, only in translation, I don’t know what it is in French)
@122 Great quote! Much subtler and deeper than what I was saying.
#119: the S&S video “essay” won’t play on my PC; just skips back to the main menu whenever you click on it. Write it down, Mr IV.