Monday 14th July 2025
Blog Page 1934

Review: Mansfield Open Mic Night

0

Manfield – a small and oft-overlooked college – has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. Its enormous JCR was buzzing on Saturday night with what appeared to be almost the entire student body, gathered together to watch three hours of homegrown comic and musical talent.

The image of Anna Turskaya elegantly playing the harp among the arcade machines set the tone for the evening, which showcased remarkable talent in a low-key and informal atmosphere. All of the comedians got laughs, and even the least confident possessed some imaginative material.

The musical acts were all enjoyable and a few performers really stood out. Singer-songwriter Alice Codner charmed with her powerful but delicate voice and witty lyrics. Duo Ben Featherstone and Joe Chrisp gave an understated but compelling performance, combining rich vocals with bluesy guitar. At the end of the night, the organisers confirmed that this was the biggest ever Mansfield Open Mic Night; let’s hope it continues to grow, as the college knows how to put on a good show.

Evan Davis speaks at Cherwell’s 90th Anniversary

Evan Davis, presenter of BBC Radio 4’s the Today programme, Dragon’s Den and The Bottom Line speaks about the art of journalism and impartiality to Oxford students, at Cherwell’s 90th Anniversary. This is followed by an interview with Antonia Tam.

Making History

0

This may sound like a crass generalisation, but sod it: school history students do Hitler and Stalin to death but very seldom anything outside Europe and America. They are taught essentially a random selection of modules devoid of any underlying purpose. Mine would be simple: to give students, within the obvious time constraints, the best possible understanding of the world today.
Whilst it’s easy to see the merits of schools teaching different subjects depending on where their teachers’ specialities lie, this is ripe for abuse. If teachers are adept at teaching Hitler and Stalin, why make them bother with anything else? I know of students who studied the dictators in year 9, then for GCSEs and at A-level. Students and schools are happy – by cutting corners, better grades are obtained, and whocares about the historical understanding?

The government, led by Niall Ferguson, are currently in the process of redesigning the History syllabus. Whatever you think about Ferguson – an uber right wing arch-apologist of empire to many – the curriculum does need fundamental altering. Given the time limits, it is essential to make what is taught as engaging as possible. The only British history I was taught from year 9 onwards was the minutiae of the Pitt and Liverpool administrations around the turn of the 19th century. This hasn’t given me a broader perspective on anything.

What is necessary is for a curriculum that, whilst retaining some flexibility, makes it impossible for students to learn the same material endlessly. It must give them some genuine understanding of the world, and focus more on the macro than micro. This means dumping Pitt, and preventing Hitler and Stalin, though important, from being taught ad infinitum. From the start of secondary school, students have up to 15 terms worth of history study – and you can teach a wide range of material in that. Before falling foul to my own time constraints, here are five papers that would be fascinating, relevant and broad, yet are very rarely taught currently: the Crusades; the Latin American conquest in the 16th century; empire building and decolonisation in Africa; partition and development in India and Pakistan; and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In defence of today’s literature

0

It’s a view held by many: we are, as a country, quite frankly getting dimmer; one of the victims of this is modern literature – great novels have passed their heyday and literature is all downhill from here. Are the pessimists right and we really have stopped creating, or appreciating, superlative works? Looking to the Amazon bestsellers list, there are indeed a fair few trashy novels there, including Jilly Cooper’s latest. Also at the top, are books perhaps more famous for the films made of them (and the celebrities who act in them) than for their literary worth: take Harry Potter or Eat, Pray, Love. In the nineteenth century, Dickens was so enjoyed by the masses that hundreds would queue up for his latest; now we queue for Twilight.

Seeing the matter in this way of course skews the reality. Dickens was hugely popular in his day; he is also now considered to have been a master. Yet there were a good number of other novelists who too were popular and who now are thought to be not worth remembering. Sensational fiction and melodrama was loved by readers back then too – it wasn’t all Hardy, Dickens and Eliot. In fact, alongside all the movements which have innovated literature – be it Romanticism, Realism or Modernism – there are also those works – many, many of them – which have simply been enjoyed at the time. And yet we tend to forget the trashy novels of yesteryear and are all too conscious and critical of our own.

Another worry raised by the cynics is whether the “great” of today are equal to the “great” of before: are books becoming less sophisticated than before? Are they easier to understand now? Is even the best contemporary literature nothing more than a dumbed-down version of what preceded it? To generalise for a second: the often long and descriptive, often complex and heavily populated plots of the Victorian writers clearly required dedication from their readers. Modernism made readers think in an entirely different way, no longer demanding the commitment to follow a complicated plot, but rather that to accept a lack of plot, to accept, for example, a book which consists purely as a series of monologues, such as Woolf’s The Waves, or which contains long passages in different languages, as in Joyce’s Ulysses. Though there are still of course highly experimental works, perhaps most novels nowadays have moved away from either of these extremes, leaving a difficult question of where they fit into a literary canon, or even if they do at all.

Indeed, writers have often been driven by a fear that they aren’t able to make their mark and will always be in the shadow of their predecessors, and this certainly must be in the minds of contemporary writers as they struggle over the question of what will characterise their own era. Each style seems to have been perfected already. Following the poetic tragedies of Shakespeare, the striking realism of George Eliot, or the experimentalism of T.S Eliot – to pick but a few – is a tall order. The question hangs over post-modernism: how to be new after has been done before? Once all the rules have been broken, as they most certainly were by Joyce et al, where is there to go? Post-modernists can hardly go much further than the modernists themselves – books have already been written with no regular syntax, without the letter “e”, with made-up words – and yet the task of rebuilding literary conventions after everything had been swept away is no easier. Modernism went so far as to question the purpose of literature itself. It’s a rather unenviable job which falls upon the writers of our generation to reconstruct something from that.

And yet the finest writers of today are certainly (and not unsuccessfully) taking on that challenge. Whilst it seems wrong to class such vastly different writers as Faulks, McEwan, Ishiguru and Rushdie in the same breath, a point can be made about all such modern writers: even if ostensibly they are perhaps more easily read than some of their predecessors, this does not mean they are more easily understood. Their novels are neither simple in plot nor in style and certainly not in their implications. They seem to have grown out of the dialectic between following strict traditions and the throwing of any linguistic or literary rules out of the window; contemporary novels are seemingly liberated from the conventions which pervaded literature in one form or another for centuries and yet they are also aware that too far down the road of literary liberty can lie incomprehension. They are, so-to-speak, a fusion of what has gone before, rather than a failure to achieve the literary heights of their ancestors.

So let’s not underestimate what modern literature has to offer. And as for trashy reads – not all literature needs to be great. It never has been so. There will always be Hardys or Joyces or Rushdies and there will equally always be Coopers and Meyers and also a whole range in between. Maybe that’s how it should be: you can’t spend your entire life meditating on the meaning of existence. Sometimes stories of a boy with a magic scar or of vegetarian vampires can be a welcome, and necessary, light relief.

The week that was: Phil Woolas scandal

0

What happened?

It’s bloody hard to win a marginal, don’t you know. Political contests for these seats can get, well, just a tad messy. One can barely keep track of who called whom a bigot, let alone who alleged whom of pandering to Islamic extremists. Best turn a blind eye to the mudslinging, then, and let the public make up their minds. Not any more, though: ex-MP Phil Woolas, one time immigration minister, has been banned from politics for three years and has had his wafer-thin election victory declared void for lying about his opponent, the Lib-Dem Elwyn Watkins. He was found guilty of apparently sanctioning general election campaign leaflets that were said to have “played the race card” that suggested his Liberal Democrat opponent was very close to local Muslims and his campaign was funded by a rich Arab. Now deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman wants him booted from the Party as well.

What the papers say

Rather a lot, as it happens. The last time an election result got overturned in court was 99 years ago, making this quite a big historical-precedent-setting deal. Add to that the fact that Woolas was a high ranking Labour MP who had been given a role on Ed Miliband’s shadow home office team, and you have yourself one heck of a story. The Mail points out that Woolas will still be able to collect his minister’s pension of 30k a year, while one Guardian blogger has suggested that Woolas’ misleading behaviour was hardly any worse than that of Lib Dem MPs who pledged not to raise tuition fees.

What now?

What indeed. Election battles will potentially never be quite the same again in this country. The Woolas affair is troubling for anyone who happens to believe that Elections should be the decision of the people, not of (unelected) high court judges. And yes, from time to time the people may be swayed by a particularly unscrupulous politician. What we have to ask, though, is whether this kind of thing should be rectified in a court of law, or whether it should instead be seen as an unfortunate but ultimately inevitable occurrence in a democratic system (Thucydides would agree). In terms of immediate consequences, however, Harriet Harman is currently facing a back bench mutiny over her desire to ostracise Woolas from the Labour Party, and the Tories have asked Labour to disclose exactly how much they knew about Woolas’ inflammatory election literature at the time of his offence. The Phil Woolas scandal is a problem for Ed Miliband that is not likely to go away soon.

In the closet

0

Otherwise known as everything that accompanies your suit, furnishings are less well known as the sartorial version of the impulse purchase. The ground floor in every men’s shop contains the ties, shirts, cuff links, shoes and pocket squares, resplendent in comparative affordability, shiny and colourful like so many slot machines or little packets of sugar coated candy.

Resist the temptation to treat furnishings as such, or as an afterthought to the more serious business taking place on the upper floors and in the fitting rooms. No good decision follows from thinking that ‘Well, we’ve come this far’, so if you can, make a separate journey to furnish your new togs, or at least catch the salesperson off-guard by starting with the ornaments.

(Incidentally, when shopping for a suit, do bring your own furnishings, including shirt, tie, shoes and cuff links. This is the only way to get the trousers and the sleeves altered correctly, leaving as little as possible to your imagination and the tailor’s estimation. Fastening your shirt collar (with or without a tie) is especially important, ensuring a flush fit across the back of your new coat.

However you get there, remember our earlier caution that sartorial offenses come in threes, and have a go picking things at random, seeing if you happen upon a combination that gives everyone the right kind of pause.

A few technical notes: If you are inclined to furnish your furnishings, with monograms and the like, make the gesture even more frivolous by locating these in unsuspecting places, including the elbow of your shirtsleeve, the underside of the handle on your business case, or the sole of your shoe near the heel.

To prevent your pocket square from disappearing entirely into your breast pocket, ask your tailor to sew a seam half-way across the lining, two or three inches up from the bottom of the pocket. The unopened half accommodates larger pocket squares, capped pens and sunglasses.

Speaking of glasses, it is absolutely acceptable to wear these just for show, provided the frames are sufficiently outrageous, and you are feeling adequately ironic.

Fashion Mathematics

0

Step 1: The Basics

The body-con skirt: the pencil skirt’s younger, sassier sister. While the latter could take you from the work wear to winebar, its more modern counterpart is a tighter, shorter, more student-friendly staple that reigns supreme in lecture theatres and nightclubs alike. But for all its versatility, the body-con skirt is one of those essentials that holds the perils of being all too generic and perhaps a tad tarty without a rich milieu of on season accessories – I’m thinking fur coats, silk shirts, and dramatic necklaces for starters.

As an evening piece it has the figure hugging benefits of sleek silhouette and providing it’s a good fabric the effect should be more Herve Leger than Jane Norman. To keep it classy balance out your bottom half with delicate floatiness, luxe layers or rich textures. By clashing the demure femininity of beads or lace with the undeniable sexiness of a great ass you’re set to straddle the style stakes from formal hall to the sweaty depths of Kukui. Then, in the headachy haze of your hangover the same little number, smothered with scruffy tees, granny knits, tights and boots, lends itself to a grungy easiness that will make tangled hair and the smudges of last night’s make-up seem deliberate.

The tan camisole is a perennial wardrobe staple that, contrary to what you might think, doesn’t have to scream ‘underwear’. With the right cut and good quality fabric – no Primark special will do – a camisole (in any shade) is an indispensable and versatile piece, perfect for injecting a bit of slink to a pair of jeans or a casual skirt. Layer under lace t-shirts or sheer blouses to nail the current trends, or under low-cut tops to keep you covered up for work. Tan or camel – the colours of the season – make a perfect accompaniment to an all black outfit.

Cigarette pants are an essential piece of any capsule wardrobe, the ideal solution to get you out of jeans and into smart power dressing. Yves Saint Laurent pioneered the androgynous look with the ‘Le Smoking’ tuxedo for women in 1966, and the cigarette pant has transcended fashion fads as a style staple you can rely on to be smart, sexy and effortlessly cool. For an evening out, team with sky scraper heels and a glamorous top or sharp shirt and accessorize with statement jewelry – be bold and embrace your inner macho ego. The beauty of every statement piece is its versatility, so dress down a pair of cigarette pants with a casual tee and slouchy cardigan or grunge it up with boots and a leather jacket, guaranteed to turn heads in early morning lectures.

Coco Chanel introduced the LBD way back when in 1920, and what can I say? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. No capsule wardrobe is complete without the little black dress. Forget all your fair weather florals and high-waisted acquaintances the LBD is a gal’s best friend: always there in a time of need and never fails to put a smile on your face. With so many styles to choose from we have settled on this structured version from Zara which provides a powerful silhouette and is perfect for the winter weather. The simplicity of the dress means you can accessorize to the hilt with all things spangly and colourful. Brogues and patterned tights soften the look for daytime wear, whilst bright heels and Breakfast at Tiffany pearls will have you turning heads at any cocktail party.

As winter chills creep over Oxford, the one item that should never be missing from your capsule wardrobe is the classic blazer. Loved throughout the generations for its versatility and stylishness, it is the go-to piece to brighten up any outfit. Throw it over a light tea dress and ballet flats for easy chic, accessorising with studded gloves and ripped tights for that grungy edge. Or, for the hungover tute we all know so well, team with an oversized tee, leggings and comfy boots to gain extra style kudos. To take the look from day to night subtract the leggings, add a sexy body con skirt, sky high heels, pile on glamorous statement jewellery and exaggerate your make up. It’s effortless, elegant and sexy. Who would say no?

Step 2: The Accents

Keeping your basics to a monochrome palette makes it easy to co-ordinate an ‘look’ when you’re hungover at 8.45am before a 9am lecture, but sticking to black and white does not a stylish outfit make – no matter what the OxStu try to tell you. ‘Accents’ are the subtle, barely-noticable features that make separate pieces come together as a coherent whole, the glue that makes the parts stick, and are the most important part of fashion mathematics. You, and the people who compliment you on your outfit, probably don’t even realise you’re wearing them. The classic nude heel, the silver wrist cuff, the skinny tan belt – these little touches are the difference-makers and the definition of effortless style. Choosing the right accents can transform your outfit from drab to ‘dahling!’, and they are so subtle they can be worn to anywhere with anything – no worries about going from homework to happy hour!

Step 3: The Personality

This is where the fashion fun begins – open the dressing up box and start playing! There are no rules here – this stage is all about trusting your instincts and putting your personal fashion fingerprint on each item. Think back to the days where you used to dig through your mother’s jewllery box and make up bag and unleash that inner wild child again. The final step of fashion formula is all about expressing your creativity and making the basics your own. The key word here is statement: the statement shoes, coats and jewellery that provide pops of print and colour and turn heads everywhere. Think jewelled clutches, quirky necklaces, and bright tights that glam up your outfit and give an extra personal touch. Add on the accessories, multiply your confidence and the fashion equation is complete.

Intoxficated

0

Our resident columnist has taken a jaunt to Trindad to sample that rum, and seeing as we’ve got no class or alcoholic know-how, we’re going big with alcopops. Before you even arrive at uni, films, television and the media all instil in you that ‘real men’ only drink beer, if not ale, if not Guinness. After bartending at a recent 18th birthday party, we can verify that the few lads who chose a nice glass of Grenache over the far more popular Corona Extra were faced with reactions that ranged from confusion to aggression at their refusal to conform. Even more tellingly, only one boy asked for a Bacardi Breezer all night, and this was only for the hilarious jape of drinking it in front of his incredulous mates – ‘Guys, have you seen Gary?! He’s got a breezer mate! What is he, gay? Nah, course not; what a joker!’ Comedy gold.

Yet when we arrive at uni, everything changes. If you take a minute to look around you next time you’re at Park End (I know it’s unpleasant but bear with me), you’ll notice that almost every ‘lad’ in the room is drinking a brightly coloured, diabetes-inducingly sweet ‘alcho-pop’. Once the preserve of 14 year old chavs drinking on park benches in city centres, these saccharine treats are now a fundamental part of the Oxford binge drinking culture.

Yes, the alco-pop is de rigeur in Oxonian establishments, particularly useful for their “strawpedo-ing” capacity – put a straw in your bottle before downing it, and the nasty process is made easier, and yes, you’re bevved even quicker. L-A-Double D. Incidentally, if you don’t like them bubbles, Reefs are a pretty good shout – they come in a variety of flavours, as do J20, but don’t be fooled, lashmongers…they’re non-alcoholic, so no pretending to be hammered after a coulple of cheeky rounds…the “J” stands for juice.

Brook-ie Error?

Rivalry isn’t the first word that comes to mind with Oxford Brookes. As one friend put it, ‘they think we’re rivals; actually they’re just jealous of us and we couldn’t give a shit about them.’ Like the ugly friend (the one with the ‘great personality’), we have a tendency to cast their students a pitiful gaze as we swan into the Rad Cam or pause to admire the architecture of our 400-year-old college, steeped with a rich history of famous alumni. And there are some pretty outdated stereotypes coming from both sides of the River Cherwell. To them, the University of Oxford is home to the Tolkien-wielding, socially-awkward recluse; to us, Brookes is home to the media studies student. So it’s about time to set the record straight: is Brookes really all binge-drinking, sex and drugs while we hole up in the library with our slippers and settle down for an all-nighter? Kim, a Brookes fresher, and I decided to swap for a day and find out who’s tame and who’s wild? Who’s clever and who’s dumb? And who really has it better?

Lectures vs. Tutorials

Helen:Now plenty of times last year when I excitedly told people that I’d got into Oxford was I met with the reply of ‘what, Brookes?’ Although seeming like a reflection on my intelligence (I prefer to think it wasn’t), Oxford seems to have set itself apart as the preserve of gifted yet obnoxious students to all the visitors that wander our arches and quads. Brookes doesn’t have a tutorial system like Oxford, and while it also doesn’t have every leading expert in the world on its books, you can’t fault the teaching. The students at Kim’s history of art lecture were more attentive than most I’ve seen at a 10am theology lecture and 10% of your course is reliant upon turning up to at least 8 out of 10 lectures (incidentally, I haven’t actually woken up in time for a lecture yet this term). If you miss the deadline for an essay at Brookes, you automatically get a zero (although Kim does only have one term…). I guess at Oxford the personal nature of a tutorial means that you can become friends with your tutor, and with friendship comes the occasional abuse of this privileged position when you miss a deadline. Oxford prides itself on the tutorial system for good reason; I don’t think a lecture could ever stretch me or I could enjoy it as much as a tutorial.

Kim:Apparently the one defining aspect of Oxford teaching is the tutorial system, unrivalled in its ability to strike fear into the heart of students. At Brookes, we only really see our tutors at our lectures, which are 12 hours each week, so it was really interesting to be able to join in with a tutorial. Interacting with a tutor on such a personal level as a tutorial was a little intimidating; however, everyone was extremely welcoming and friendly. I’m not sure whether it was down to the tutor, or the quality of the essays, or simply being so much more personal, but in the tutorial I picked up much more than I would in a lecture. At Brookes, tutorials are available to anyone but are not timetabled and need to be arranged privately with your tutor, which most people don’t, so I was startled at how much I picked up just in an hour and how effective (and not scary!) the tutorial system actually was.

Halls vs. College

Helen: RRenowned as one of the most expensive colleges in Oxford, yet still the poorest, my college, Pembroke, perhaps isn’t the greatest example of college accommodation. But compared to modern flats shared between 6 people at Clive Booth halls at least we have character and charm, and that counts for a lot more (if you ignore the 70s’ build at the back). I’d imagine the bedrooms at Kim’s halls were more conducive to any night-time activities than our paper thin walls and ceilings and the kitchen/living areas made it really homely, but that still wouldn’t make me leave our beautiful quads anytime soon.

Kim: The Clive Booth campus at Brookes these days is a construction site with some very ugly 1960s’ buildings so Pembroke was a real treat. I hate to admit Oxford’s better in any way than Brookes but the buildings and grounds of all of the colleges I looked at were gorgeous compared to ours. The whole college atmosphere with common rooms, formal halls (complete with sconsing) and staircases was a lot less Mallory Towers/Harry Potter than I imagined it would be, but there’s no way it can be as much fun. Our parties aren’t about to get broken up by a ‘junior dean’ if there are more than 10 people present.

Fuzzy Ducks vs. College Bop

Helen: My last encounter with Oxford Brookes was a Faithless gig at their student union. After spending the night locked in several ill-advised clinches with a Brookes’ boy named Drew, I discovered all my friends had left and I was stuck in Headington alone, drunk, with no money and the offer of a night of passion if I left by 9am so he could go to play football with his friends. I was apprehensive then at the idea of another Brookes’ night. Fuzzy Ducks promotes itself on the fact that several years ago FHM called it ‘the easiest place to get laid in the country’; with drunk girls, unfussy men, cheap drink, and plenty of costumes constructed from the odds and ends of Primark’s lingerie department, it isn’t difficult to see why it manages to hold onto its reputation. One fellow student called it ‘the biggest self-confidence boost’, which could either be put down to the ability to pull pretty much anyone you set your sights on or that fact that you’re guaranteed to look better than half the other clubbers. It did seem like a status thing for a Brookes’ guy to get with Oxford girls; Kim’s flat-mate was particularly proud of his current achievement in ‘university challenge’ (getting with a girl from every Oxford college, that is, not the TV show). The DJ’s cries of ‘Let’s show Oxford what we’re made of’ (tut, hanging preposition) whipped the crowd into a frenzy of drunken face-sucking, so Brookes, you’re welcome, I guess.

Kim: The word ‘bop’ evokes images of a 1950s swing dance in a village hall and its new definition as a ‘college disco’ didn’t really get me as excited as the college seemed to be getting about their ‘Halloween themed bop at Que Pasa’. In theory they sound fine, but from what I’d heard, it was all bad fancy dress and drunken snogs leading to a lot of banter/shame the next day. Sure enough, drinking games were in full swing when I arrived at Helen’s house because ‘you’ve got to be fucked to enjoy a bop’. Surprisingly, despite slightly-out-of-date R’n’B and enough Apple Sourz to burn away my stomach lining, I actually had a lot of fun. I guess the whole bop experience is based on the fact that you know nearly everybody there and you can get up to some illicit/incestuous/gossip-fuelling fun with a person you’ll have to make eye contact with for the next 3 years. Although that might be what makes bops good, a little anonymity is what makes Fuzzy Ducks great. If I want a little more of that kind of action I’ve been told a crew date followed by a Wednesday night at Shark End is the place to go. Any takers?

Oxford and Brookes. They’re different, for sure. I don’t think there’s going to be a day anytime soon when you hear the Union President heading for a pint at the Brookes’ SU or any Brookes’ student bemoaning the fact that they haven’t got 16 essays this term. But maybe we should concede (probably rather quietly, and just to ourselves) that we’re a lot more similar than most of us admit.

Drops of Jupitus

0

Phill Jupitus, no really it’s Phill not Phil, brings something extra to the table, whether it’s an extra ‘l’ in his name or an extra discipline of entertainment he has decided to master. Best known as a comedian, he has forayed into the world of TV and radio presenter, DJ, guitarist and performance poet. Spending almost 15 years as a team captain on ‘Never Mind the Buzzcocks’ and making regular appearance on ‘QI’, he has become a household name, although there’s no arrogance about him; as a plane overhead drowned out our interview, he remarked ‘that’s actually my private jet. I want you to know that comedy reaaallly pays’. Obviously it wasn’t. He’d in fact just got lost following his Sat Nav through the ever-confusing Oxford one-way system.

Jupitus isn’t known for mincing his words; he has openly fought with the BBC and exhibits brilliantly cutting wit on the Buzzcocks, taking no celebrity prisoners. Yet the man I found at the Union, wearing a jaunty hat and sitting opposite me on a small wooden picnic table, was happy to share his time, muttering to me conspiratorially as the press officer tried to hurry us up: ‘Don’t listen to him, do a couple more questions. He’s just trying to control me!’ And so it was that we delved into the world of a comedian and the difficulty that is inherent with the public persona versus the private.

‘It’s that failure to meet expectation, which isn’t a pressure so much as an encumbrance on occasions, because people are expecting you to be the guy off never mind the Buzzcocks 24/7 and that’s the weird part of it. But also from a personal point of view, I actually used to be very sort of gobby and chatty among my mates and used to do jokes all the time when we were in the pub and everything, and now I don’t. I just don’t do it because it’s my job- it’s a bit of a busman’s holiday to sort of be larking around when you’re with your friends now.

‘As a parent now you’re just aware of changes more and I think as a comedian, I hate to think that people are disappointed when I meet them that I don’t give them something that they’re expecting. But I think if you keep an open mind it’s cool and if I relax enough then maybe something funny falls out, but I tend to not do comedy on the nod as it were, I only do it under controlled conditions. I’m a lab comic.’

His argument of comedy needing the right conditions is no better illustrated than by the story of his own inappropriate stand-up, when he was put on with ‘The Who’ at the Royal Albert Hall. Although Jupitus hasn’t done full-on stand-up comedy for years now (through choice, not due to this trauma), he charts this as his number one stand up nightmare – the stuff of sleepless nights: ‘I thought that I’d just be introducing bands at a benefit gig, but as it turns out, he wanted me to go on in the middle of a Who gig and do comedy. Now, if I can just say, in my defence, I was booed off, but if I’d have been in that audience, I’d have booed me off. It’s comedy out of its box. It’s a terrible terrible thing, and it doesn’t work and is wildly inappropriate on occasions.’

Jupitus’ work with the celebrity world, despite the distressing experience above, only developed with his role on the Buzzcocks. He has encountered the sublime to the ridiculous – with recent panellists such as the internationally-renowned Mark Ronson to the identity parade which has featured the likes of DJ Tommy B aka Tom Beasley from Blazin’ Squad (who?). He emphasises the bottom line of Buzzocks: ‘It’s a show where you check your ego at the door’. Yet this hasn’t stopped celebs in the past taking issue; Preston from Ordinary Boys (and Big Brother) fame stormed off the show after the the host Simon Amstell’s teasing got too much. But following my question of who Jupitus found the biggest diva to date, I was a little taken aback; I was thinking along the lines of an internationally-renowned songstress. I remember seeing Bonnie Tyler appear on the show a few years back, and quite frankly, if I had sung ‘Total eclipse of the heart’, I’d definitely be a diva, no questions asked. But no.

‘Oddly enough the most diva-ish person we had on was Vanessa Feltz, and she just was, I hate to say it, she just was quite ungracious. Could dish but couldn’t take. And it’s got to be a two-way streak when you come on that show. And she just really took issue with Simon, the host, I mean really, and suddenly I just felt this icy chill on my right hand side and she became quite angry sort of about half way through the show. It’s a comedy show ultimately and you can’t. If you’ve got somebody as high-profile as Vanessa Feltz, and you’ve put as much of your personal life in the public domain, then when that comes back at you, you should at least, at the very least, be prepared for that. Whereas she was acting like, ‘Oh my god what’s this?’ But all of it was out there; he was using stuff that was in the papers, interviews – stuff from her own interviews.’

The arrival of presenter Simon Amstell did undoubtedly bring a new level of controversy to the show, and a marked depature from the days of Mark Lamarr – Jupitus is now the only one of the old guard to remain. Both the original presenter and the other team captain, Lamarr and Sean Hughes respectively, started their careers in the same field as Jupitus, as performance poets.

Jupitus toured the student scene, travelling around universities, colleges and student unions supporting bands such as Billy Bragg, The Style Council and The Housemartins. And there’s certainly a fondness that is evident in Jupitus’ words about Bill Bailey, the absurdly creative comic who took over from Sean Hughes as the opposing team captain for 10 series. We discuss the most prominent of Bill’s features, naturally his groomed beard and mass of wizardly hair: ‘Well it’s that cling-on look.’ But Jupitus isn’t threatened – he backs his facial-growing prowess to the end: ‘Well I can, if I wish to, grow a similar thing. It’s not a big Hemingway beard, Bill’s, it’s that close-manicured beard, which is a bit like mine when I bother to grow one so I don’t envy it. I can rock one. When the need takes me, I can rock one.’

Jupitus certainly didn’t let us forget Bailey’s departure from the show with his musically questionable, but hilarious duet of Jordin Sparks’ ‘No air’ with Amstell, the presenter at the time. Years of practice in the ‘Intros’ round was put to great use with this performance in which Jupitus expanded from imitating various instruments to a full blown vocal performance. We muse over the innovative scientific question raised by Jordin Sparks’: ‘How are you supposed to breathe with no air?’

‘Well in essence it’s a vacuum. Jordin Sparks has violated a basic precept of physics there surely… And of biology at the same time. If there is no air then you suffocate, but is that not what Jordin Sparks is saying in the song – I am dead because there is a lack of air. And no matter how much I try to breathe, there is still no air. And so how am I supposed to breathe with no air? Well that’s surely rhetoric in its purest form.’

To summarise the life of a comedian, Jupitus shared with me a recent conversation he’d had with fellow comedian, Sean Lock: ‘The way he describes what we’re doing is, as a comedian, you are mining a facet of your own personality, which is an incredibly introspective thing to do and a weird thing to do. You’re pulling part of yourself out and selling it, which can make you feel a bit whore-y’. But there was nothing whore-y about Phill Jupitus; he didn’t plug his work or try to force his humour on me. He was light, casually humorous, and surprising. He didn’t tear my questions apart with the wit we so often see on TV, but revealed himself as a ‘Who’ concert gate-crasher, beard growing, groupie of Jordin Sparks (albeit a sarcastic one).

Follow Phill on twitter: @jupitusphillip