If someone could teach a foetus how to sing the theme tune from Titanic, it surely wouldn't be long before it would be auditioning for Pete Waterman.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/tonyparsons/

Absolute gold dust! And well OTM an' all. God bless yer Tony, you should write about music more often...

or?

Charlie (Charlie), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 01:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Wow, I almost feel sorry for that guy.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 05:20 (twenty-three years ago)

tony parsons is the worst person in england. i have no desire to read the reactionary conservative nonsense this man writes. capitalize him randomnly and you get steven wells

gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 09:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Come on Charlie you don't seriously think that was good? It was written in the usual finger-jabbing Fleet Street style where bluster covers up a lack of argument. Saying the Rolling Stones were better than Will and Gareth tells you as little about "music now" and "music then" as saying that So Solid Crew are better than Englebert Humperdinck. Also he bangs on about "love of music" but you can tell he really likes the Stones because of all the sex'n'drugs antics they got up to. Though of course when a woman has a varied sex life (the Ulrika commentary below) it's "gruesome".

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 10:05 (twenty-three years ago)

So, on one side there were young men singing soppy ballads, making goo-goo eyes at the camera and conducting themselves with the strained good manners of Young Conservatives.
And on the other side there were drug busts, early deaths, wasted beauty, broken hearts, heroin overdoses, court cases, illegitimate children, screaming girls and nervous breakdowns.

Theres probably just as many drugs and nervous breakdowns among the boy bands, but its just kept quiet. The Rolling Stoners, et al. didn't care if anyone knew what fucked up things they were doing behind the scenes. In fact they're real lives might've actually been less exciting that the lives presented to the public.
Nowadays, they just sit around, gumming their food and playing scrabble in between concerts and blood-changings.

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 11:57 (twenty-three years ago)

charlie has to be joking. this is another boring 'weren't the 60s boy bands better than post-millenium pop bands'.

I, on the other hand, condemn all of it!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:05 (twenty-three years ago)

McMusic is obsessed with youth.
And rockers aren't?

I've been looking around the rest of this Mirror site. Is this newspaper supposed to be some kinda respectable "New York Times"-ish deal or is it just a gussied up "International Inquirer"-style gossip rag?

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:06 (twenty-three years ago)

its a tabloid.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, any points that he might have made in his article about music were totally negated by the sexist bullcrap that he spouted about Ulrika. Fuck right off and take your double standards with you. Sex and drugs and rocknroll = cool for the Stones, but BAGGAGE for a woman? I don't fucking think so.

There were manufactured prefab popstars in the 60s, too, shock horror. It was just harder to see the puppet strings behind them. These days, the puppet strings are part of the art. I think I have more respect for that...

kate, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I truly, truly, dread the day when the offspring of Parsons and Burchill decides to put pen to paper for money. He must be the worst person in the world!

Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Also he bangs on about "love of music" but you can tell he really likes the Stones because of all the sex'n'drugs antics they got up to. Though of course when a woman has a varied sex life (the Ulrika commentary below) it's "gruesome".

Yeah, the first thing I thought when I read this was what a horrible little hypocrite this old man is.

And it's a stupid and thoughtless comparison in the first place, isn't it? It's easy to condemn music today if you're just going to look at things like Will Young, if you're too afraid to listen to new music that wasn't created by white boys with guitars.

Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:49 (twenty-three years ago)

will young says he's a marxist. mick jagger has been a stern unbending tory for as long as i can remember. argument demolished, ergo, had of course the ulrika addendum not already done so.

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 12:54 (twenty-three years ago)

racist, bigotted, small-minded, little-englander. let's not waste any more time on him, eh?

michael wells (michael w.), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 13:04 (twenty-three years ago)

wot u mean mick jagger? ;-)

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 13:22 (twenty-three years ago)


you missed off 'sexist', michael:

'Why should a woman never get drunk? Because being drunk makes you loud, obnoxious, sentimental, self-pitying and stupid. And of course most women are like that when they are completely sober.'

- Tony Parsons

andy, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 13:32 (twenty-three years ago)

It's funny, when you read this and see how everyone hates him, that he managed to write a book which struck such a huge chord with the general public and seemed to achieve what a lot of books fail to do - communicate human truths and get people thinking about their lives and other people.

Don't get me wrong, I too think he's a complete dick. I've thought that ever since I saw him on The Late Review on BBC2 where, reclining in his chair, he yawningly dismissed every scrap of art and artistic effort put in front of him. Behind his laughing face though, you could see it was just him saying whatever it took to make him look like a valid, cutting-edge critic.

I just think it's strange how he produced this very popular book (Man & Boy). Maybe it's just lowest-common-denominator stuff, but I read it and thought it was OK.

Dr. David Jackson, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I just think it's strange how he produced this very popular book

the most popular newspaper in the country is 'the sun'. what's strange.

michael wells (michael w.), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I just think it's strange how he produced this very popular book

the most popular newspaper in the country is 'the sun'. what's strange?

michael wells (michael w.), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:17 (twenty-three years ago)

if i could just...click...my...mouse..in....time....aaarrrggghh!

michael wells (michael w.), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:18 (twenty-three years ago)

He read. The book. Book. Read. It was crap. Real. Unadulterated. Crap. That's what she said to me. What she said. To. Me. Before she moved her things out. Out. Her things. She said, "Harry." Said. She. "You're a. Useless. Tosser." "Charming," I thought to myself. Myself. To thought. I. Women. Eh? It's like what old Cainey said in Alfie. You can't live. With them. But you can't. Live. Without them. I went to Mario's supine restaurant. In Islington. Upper Street. Thursday afternoon. Not a peak time for trade. He said. "Harry. You need. Sort yourself. Out. To. Mate." I gazed at the world through my soup. It had gone bleeding cold. Bleeding. It was tomato soup. Blood. The blood of my boy. My Albert. Flowing through that tosspot's dick. Dick. Tosspot. That. I listened to Jools Holland. To Holland - Jools - listened. I.

(continued for another 374 pages)

Tony Paronss for legal reasons, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Can I just point out that Littlejohn is worse than Parsons. Or Simon Heffer.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:20 (twenty-three years ago)

And, once again, ILM is poisioned by the self-appointed "Roger Fascist" and his Guardianista liberal elite. If it was up to these people, gay asylum seekers would be allowed to fly planes into our most valuable institutions: YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.

Richard Littlejohn (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm laughing out loud. Well done man.

Roger Fascist (Roger Fascist), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I'll avoid the temptation of the link at the start of the thread. I want to keep my breakfast down.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 15:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Parsons' natural home is of course the paper he wrote for c. 1995, the Daily Redcoatandwellygraph.

robin carmody (robin carmody), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 18:32 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm sure that when he was signed up as a "hip young gunslinger" by the NME back in 1976, Tony Parson took an oath promising that no matter how uninspired, lazy or old he got he would never resort to the "It Was All Better In My Day, Sunny Jim" article. But even back then he never showed any interest in music qua music. Remember how he and the missus dismissed all music except the Tom Robinson Band as "wanking in the wind" in The Boy Looked At Johnny?

Oh how we laughed.

Yes/No Interlude (Yes/No Interlude), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 19:30 (twenty-three years ago)

"I've thought that ever since I saw him on The Late Review on BBC2 where, reclining in his chair, he yawningly dismissed every scrap of art and artistic effort put in front of him. Behind his laughing face though, you could see it was just him saying whatever it took to make him look like a valid, cutting-edge critic."

http://www.fistoffun.net/book/17.htm

Dan Emerson, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 20:37 (twenty-three years ago)

There were manufactured prefab popstars in the 60s, too, shock horror. It was just harder to see the puppet strings behind them

I'd say it's more or less the same (certainly Phil Spector and the Motown crew had a decent share of fame?)

Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 22 October 2002 22:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Can I just point out that Littlejohn is worse than Parsons. Or Simon Heffer.

No, Parsons is worse, much worse. Littlejohn has always been a reactionary right-wing windbag, if anything he's mellowed with age, and on occasion he can be funny. Parsons on the other hand has turned a self-righteous humourless nasty little right-wing p**k, he's become a modern Woodrow Wyatt (he's even called to bring back hanging).

I read Heffer with a morbid fascination (unlike the above two, + me, he can write btw). He should be declared a National Trust monument, the personification of why the Tories are languishing in opposition and flat-lining in the polls. A man who would have felt society was going to the dogs in 1950s. More importantly, unlike Parsons, completely harmless.

stevo (stevo), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 23:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Heffer is also disturbingly young for someone who thinks like that (born 1960 IIRC)

robin carmody (robin carmody), Wednesday, 23 October 2002 08:13 (twenty-three years ago)

God damn it, I was all psyched because I thought it was going to be about teaching fetuses to sing, but it was another one of those weepy back-in-the-day snorefests

geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 October 2002 08:22 (twenty-three years ago)

...Blood. The blood of my boy. My Albert. Flowing through that tosspot's dick. Dick. Tosspot. That. I listened to Jools Holland. To Holland - Jools - listened. I.
(continued for another 374 pages)

I award the "Best William Shatner Impersonation Award" to Tony Paronss for legal reasons.

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Wednesday, 23 October 2002 18:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Bob Odenkirk, no!

Nate Patrin, Thursday, 24 October 2002 17:34 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.