A word from our sponsors
The Collings & Herrin Podcast is herewith sponsored by the Rhythm Festival, which looks like a very nice, modest music festival suitable for families and held in a place near Bedford, August 21-23. We have done a deal with them, whereby we promote the festival and for every weekend ticket sold, they GIVE US MONEY. Well, they give money to our chosen charities, Scope and Thomas's Fund. So go and have a look at their website. This has to be one of the worst sponsorship deals in the history of capitalism: we do all the work, and only our charities profit. But that's the kind of guys we are. We will be rewarded at some other point. And the man running the festival seems very nice, and we trust him.
In our 67th podcast, sponsored by the Rhythm Festival, blah blah blah, we discuss the electoral victory of the BNP and whether it's OK to have a go at Nick Griffin because of his face, celebrate the showbiz camp of Colonel Gaddafi, ponder the advantages and disadvantages of the head massage, admire Caroline Flint's shoes, assert Duncan Norvelle's heterosexuality, debate the spyhole, and, in the newly-shorn Richard's case, aim for two new catchphrases, one of which really belongs to Arnold Schwarzenegger. (British Library pencil sharpener pictured.)
posted by Andrew Collins @ 1:21 PM
12 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
12 Comments:
"Hurray for Collings and Herrin at Edinburgh!"
This is what I will shout when I see you, as it was your talk of Edinburgh way back in September that inspired me to move there this summer.Oh the excitement is building!
Re: Glastonbury
Myself and my friend Joe are planning to find Adam and Joe at some point in the festival to tell them how great we think they are. You are very welcome to join us on our search. We'll be the ones singing 'Retro Text the Nation'
Infinitely improved...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YIU64sy8A
Hope you like it! :)
I think Richard's comments about your charity should have been edited out.
I'm not going to boycott the podcast or anything, I just think editing decisions should be made on value (i.e. being funny) vs offensiveness, and in this case any small value there might have been was intertwined with feeling really awkward that Richard knew he was being a dick and wasn't able to admit it so sort of carried on. I think those kinds of failed comedy moments happen sometimes but should stay between two people and perhaps not be shared. And yes, I do understand irony etc etc.
Rest of the podcast was good :)
I thought you were wearing a Gaddafi t-shirt in the photo. I laughed out loud, then realised my error.
Oh, and don't start editing the podcasts. I like the raw un-cut nonsense format.
I think my comments were so clearly at my own expense, about the ridiculous idea of competing or suggesting AC's charity wasn't as good as mine, that to take offence is at best to misunderstand.
It only serves to make me look like a prick. If that's why you were offended, because you know I am not, then I take it back. But it would be wrong to edit it out when the victim of the comedy is obviously the idiotic podcast Richard Herring.
Robster: firstly, the bit about the charities would have been impossible to edit, as it was connected to the sponsorship of the Rhythm Festival and would have involved either vandalising the dialogue or removing a whole section.
Secondly, we don't edit for a good reason: the appeal or otherwise of the podcast is that it is two men talking for an hour and six minutes unscripted, unrehearsed and unedited. This is why it works - or doesn't work. We live or die on what comes out of our mouths. Thus, you must take the rough with the smooth (and of course, you have two forums by which to express pleasure or displeasure, which you have done - that's democracy and freedom of speech, because we don't live in Iran).
I don't actually think it's up to us to decide what is funny and what is offensive - not everything thinks that same thing is funny, and not everybody thinks the same thing is offensive. As for "failed comedy moments" - there are probably more of those than "successful comedy moments" but you have to have some of the former to make way for the latter. Unless you are scripting and rehearsing your podcast. Which we are not. And never will.
Andrew, thank god you don't edit. I understand when you get libellous that you would consider it, but you are absolutely right that is part of the appeal of the podcast. Richard saying something that sits on the egde of funny/offensive (and it is often a fine line) and you squirming is what I love about the podcast. What is often not mentioned when this debate comes around and a specific example is used is that RH then usually swings comepletly the other way and that for me *is* hilarious.
Yes when it isn't funny, it can be cringeworthy, but when it does come off there are some real laugh-out-loud moments and for a podcast I find that is rare.
What I really want to know though, is after you introduced your mother to the Mitford Podcast, did she then listen to the following C+H podcast with RH's 'nyum nyum nyum' tirade?
Last night as I was listening I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable for the some of the reasons as Robster. Richard's comments did feel "too far". But then, when taking into consideration the excrement-child complaint, I knew that I didn't feel at all like that listener did. So I agree that editing it out would have been unnecessary . But at the time it did feel particularly heartless, even when said in jest.
Twinwoods arena - the site of the airfield that Glenn Miller flew from the night he disappeared.
(Less "romantically" - its also a stonesthrow from the Yarl's Wood detention centre.)
Seeing as you guys are sponsoring the Rhythm Festival for the next few weeks and to move on from issue of charities....to help you with the spelling, I was always taught "Rhythm Has Your Two Hips Moving" works for me although my other spelling is terrible!!
I first tried to listen to the podcast while tired, and drifted in and out of sleep as you two went on about toilet peep holes and the like. I don't recommend listening to the podcast in this way. It was quite disturbing.
For that reason I think you should have edited the whole thing out and just released a silent John-Cale-like MP3. It would have been less weird for me.
I later listened to the podcast while awake and laughed like a ****.
(I edited out that last bit for your more sensitive readers.)
Whoops - I mean John Cage. I should have just said Mike Batt.
Post a Comment
<< Home