RECENT POSTS
The previous ten posts on the Blog
Archives
- Defenders Of The Face - When Musicians Get Hit By Stuff
- Maccabees In Malawi – Video
- Jamie Afro - What Passes For A 'Rock' Contestant On 'The X Factor'
- Ellie Goulding On '...Jools Holland'
- Writer, Poet, Class Warrior - A Steven Wells Tribute Film
- Unearthed - Muse Live Footage From 1994
- Eric Cartman Covers Lady GaGa's 'Poker Face'
- The Many Dance Moves Of Julian Casablancas
- Lightspeed Champion - In The Studio
- Unearthed - 'New' U2 Tracks From The 'Unforgettable Fire' Sessions
- Watch Alan McGee In 'Svengali' Episode Six
- NSFW! - It's The 18 Most Explicit Music Videos Ever
- More...
CATEGORIES
Filter Blog posts by...
Categories
- All
- NME Video Blog (228)
SEARCH
Use the form below to search the blog archives...
Posted on 03/07/09 at 11:17:09 am
Jarvis Cocker was a panellist on 'Question Time' last night. Now, it'd be gratifying to report that the elder statesman of Britpop punctured the arid studio atmosphere by jumping up on the table and waggling his bum in David Dimbleby's face, Brit Awards '96 style.
Sadly, he's a more mature figure these days, and is no stranger to the world of adult political debate, having edited Radio 4's Today Programme in December 2008.
So how did he do?
Well, not brilliantly, to be honest. He came across as nervous and hesitant. Launching into his first contribution – on the subject of Gordon Brown's spending plans – the former Pulp man began with a phrase that all news junkies and policy wonks rejoice to hear: "I can't pretend to be particularly informed on this particular subject, but…"
He got into the swing of it though, and on the subject of Ronnie Biggs' parole he was able to come across as a straight-talking Yorkshireman – sort of an indie John Prescott, without the vomiting and rage – and was rewarded with a ripple of applause: the Holy Grail for first-time 'Question Time' contestants.
As for the rest of the panel, it was business as usual. Harriet Harman sounded shrill and disagreeable, like La Roux in a huff, while Peter Hitchens once again proved himself to be several steps to the political right of Hermann Goring, displaying the charm and avuncular warmth that's made the Mail On Sunday columnist such a well-loved figure throughout the nation.
Next week: Rick Witter debates Royal Mail privatisation with Andrew Marr.
Watch last night's 'Question Time' on iPlayer – Jarvis' first contribution is at 9.30
Permalink
[Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 11:36
lets be honest he was fucking rubbish
james guthrie [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 12:20
Jarvis was hesitant and vague. He might have been thinking earth shattering thoughts but if so there was a blockage between his brain and his mouth. Surprising, since he'd done radio 4 talkie stuff before to an OK level.
[Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 12:26
i was cringing everytime a question was put to him.
Mick [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 13:18
I thought considering some of the questions, he did OK. You've got to remember that 'politicians' and newspaper journalists spend everyday making a living knowing the ins and outs of public affairs. We mere mortals have a passion or knowledge in politics for the things we feel are unjust. ie the BNP.
Questions about teachers been licensed and the railways..
It's very hard to be articulate as people who have been doing this thing for decades.
Politics at the end of the day, is about normal people in everyday lives. It's not a show, of who can give the most academic answer and pontificate.
It needs people like Jarvis on that table and considering the questions and circumstances.
I think he did OK!
I think if you re-watch it on the BBC iPlayer and try and move on from not being as fast and articulate as the 'professionals'..he did indeed raise some very, very good points and at the same time did not bow down to the 'Question Time' mold of how to do things. I think people didn't really fully understand what he meant in some of his 'off the wall' comments.
He was good man.
Thom-Bland! [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 13:45
Didn't have nearly as much to say as I thought that he would. Better than Will Young pondering on the seriousness of snowfall though.
Richard [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 14:09
Jarvis is usually penetrating, persuasive and articulate. Here, he was none of those things. I was willing him to provide an antidote to the polished politicos and the dyspeptic hack Hitchens but he wilted and ended up looking a bit bewildered. Mick, you can declare him to be unconventional, misunderstood and profound all you like but he fluffed it.
Richard [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 14:19
It's easy (and often fairly accurate) to label Hitchens Minor a Nazi but- other than a pro-hanging rant- I didn't really see too much evidence on this performance of him being 'several steps to the political right of Hermann Go[e]ring'.
Luke Lewis [Member] //July 3 2009 at 14:21
@Richard - you're right, it was just a wild swing at Hitchens, to be honest. Easy target and all that.
Pip [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 14:51
Jarvis was only invited onto the panel because of Michael Jackson. That he agreed to do it shows guts - the rest of the panel are professional gabblers, who live to score political points. They aren't exactly common people. Jarvis didn't pretend to be an egghead, he was just himself. How do you think anyone of the other panelists would have done live onstage at Glastonbury?
Mick [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 15:52
Pip, he was booked a few weeks before MJ sadly died.
I totally agree with you though.
Dave [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 18:37
I'd say that Jarvis could have done a better job with saying some bits and perhaps getting some points across if Harriet Harman could have just shut the fuck up for 5 seconds, instead of going off like a spin-doctor crossed with an air-raid siren.
Matt [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 21:08
Question Time is such a useless programme, its a bunch of people pretending they know all the answers to everything. Jarivs should have stayed well clear.
James [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 21:23
i didnt think he did too badly. made me chuckle with his point about teachers 'not forgetting the things they do every year' or something like that. ive seen politicians with worse performances
Scyne [Visitor] //July 3 2009 at 23:40
He was clueless. I like it when non-politicians go on QT and are interesting, thoughtful and funny. He was none of those things - just rubbish. He should have at least thought a little about the questions that obviously would come up.
kissmehardy [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 02:36
He was woeful i'm afraid.
Where was his eloquence?
v. disappointed.
Melvin [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 08:06
I had such high hopes for this - a chance to watch our man take 'em down from this inside and other such foolishly romantic notions. His baffling inarticulacy on the night was a huge disappointment and I felt an odd sense that he'd almost 'let the side down', as it were.
Carlos B [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 10:01
Jarvis sadly had nothing constructive or well informed to say.
He was nowhere near as bad as Alex James was, when he appeared on question time. Alex James was so rubbish he could only give one word answers.
Joshua [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 10:11
Matt, thats rubbish. Programmes like Question Time are important because it makes politics accountable and gives the public the opportunity to ask the questions that usually dont get asked. Although I'm sure for you a show like Big Brother Big Mouth is the limit for you on a show of this format. I'm sorry for that.
[Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 12:55
Brit awards '96, wun' it?
Jed [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 14:34
Well compared to Harman with her "no labour are still really good" desperate pleas, he made some good points but they tended to be just one line sensible points and were not well developed. Still what other musician could you stick on a political programme without them making an arse of themselves?
markiechops [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 18:10
Jarvis could write and sing with an emotional and ideological clarity and force that none of his peers could match, but when he speaks he somehow manages to out-stupid even the most moronic taxi driver.
jasaeeeeesss [Visitor] //July 4 2009 at 20:03
He was alrite. Got the mj subject spot on.
king ken [Visitor] //July 5 2009 at 01:14
This man is a cock absolutely no talent whatsoever a chancer i have heard more of a tune come out of my exhaust pipe than out of his gob! He was shown up on question time, serves him right, a man who shoots his gob off at a seconds notice thinks he knows everything, to get himself publicity its pathetic. Its quite sad he can see himself as some kind of indie icon he is a tosser pulp were wank and his solo records are worse as if they can get any worse than pulp! Stop giving him time nme he is a gobshite. ps Piss off cocker yer nob
Mick [Visitor] //July 6 2009 at 10:30
I observe that you are not one Jarvis greatest fans King Ken.
Who then from the musical world you suggest goes on then?..Liam Gallagher?
[Visitor] //July 12 2009 at 13:38
cocker yer nob piss off!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Visitor] //July 12 2009 at 13:38
cocker yer nob piss off!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Row [Visitor] //August 5 2009 at 07:00
What makes me laugh is him saying 'I think it's just a tragedy that Micheal Jackson hasn't made good music in 20 years'
I don't know where to start with that - you wrote some tune about fucking common people once? I'm pretty sure you're more famous for stage crashing MJ than anything else...
And didn't it take you 20 years to find your 15 minutes of fame!?
Wonkey-Kong [Visitor] //August 5 2009 at 14:08
I was expecting well constructed points and rebuttals, based on the intelligent lyrics he sings....but I was horrified at how stupid he was. Shades of Dizzee Rascal being torn apart by Jeremy Paxman, he did himself no favours by being completely clueless on every issue and diverting the debate to generic political moaning. Lost a lot of respect for him that night
Leave a comment:
<< Previous post: This Is A High - Blur's Best Ever Live Performances - Video
Next post: Hot Shame And Rising Panic - Why Musicians And TV Politics Don't Mix >>
