I used to be one, kind of.
I remember really loving listening to Numan LP's as a teenager. I had a surprisingly large collection of his stuff. When I took that awful decision to donate my vinyl to my dad as I "went CD", I remember raising an eyebrow when I counted how many Numan records there were. But it was cool, my dad liked Numan too, so they weren't wasted.
And I still like Numan now. I like his "new stuff" as much as I like the "old stuff". And it really does bring a smile to my face watching him on stage now ... he finally seems to be enjoying himself.
It's kind of strange, for all the dystopian angst and "80's-ness" in his early music and the big gap in his career, he seems to have turned out OK, a lot less precious and pretentious than many of his peers.
Good on you, Gary. Here's hoping for many more years of good music.
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Sunday, 18 July 2010
92 today #happybirthdaymadiba
So, today the saintly Nelson Mandela is 92. And I have to admit, as a rather cynical person, I have a grudging admiration for the man.
He may not have achieved much post Apartheid, but at least he appears to not be an outright cunt like so many of his peers. It was inevitable that he was going to be showered with riches upon his release, but he appears not to have gone looking for any more. He took his task of healing the nation seriously and even though the roots of reverse racism took place under his rule, I don't think his intentions were malign.
And remember, this was a man who advocated killing random strangers, black or white, to bring about change.
I once met a man who'd been on Robben Island for even longer than Nelson Mandela, he was the nicest, gentlest person you could ever hope to meet, it was hard to imagine that he'd once actually killed random people by planting bombs.
I think it's probably that 25-odd years in a shithole prison are enough to knock the cuntishness out of anyone, really.
And so I have a suggestion to improve the level of political discourse and aspiration in this country. In order to stand for parliament, you have to spend 25 years in a maximum security shithole run by vicious bastards who fucking hate you. After your sentence is complete, you are free to stand for parliament.
It really can't be any worse than the system we have today.
He may not have achieved much post Apartheid, but at least he appears to not be an outright cunt like so many of his peers. It was inevitable that he was going to be showered with riches upon his release, but he appears not to have gone looking for any more. He took his task of healing the nation seriously and even though the roots of reverse racism took place under his rule, I don't think his intentions were malign.
And remember, this was a man who advocated killing random strangers, black or white, to bring about change.
I once met a man who'd been on Robben Island for even longer than Nelson Mandela, he was the nicest, gentlest person you could ever hope to meet, it was hard to imagine that he'd once actually killed random people by planting bombs.
I think it's probably that 25-odd years in a shithole prison are enough to knock the cuntishness out of anyone, really.
And so I have a suggestion to improve the level of political discourse and aspiration in this country. In order to stand for parliament, you have to spend 25 years in a maximum security shithole run by vicious bastards who fucking hate you. After your sentence is complete, you are free to stand for parliament.
It really can't be any worse than the system we have today.
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Mixed emotions
Been a bit of a rollercoaster ride today ... great F1 race, with Vettel romping home, but a solid performance from Lewis and Jenson, then the crappy soccer and some quite stunning cricket, apart from the shitty middle-order collapse.
Ah well, maybe next time, eh?
Ah well, maybe next time, eh?
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Is it just me?
Lately, there seems to be a fetish for matt black cars. I could understand the first couple of people trying it, even though it's not to my taste. But now I see everyone from Ford to Merc to BMW are producing matt cars. To be fair, BMW's is matt grey, but even so, what the fuck is this all about, anyway?
Enough with this shit already.
Enough with this shit already.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
BP's Epic Fail
If BP fails to cap the oil spill, I reckon they should get crucified financially. But really, if BP was put out of business as a result of this spill, what then? Will it fix the leak?
And how are UK pensioners going to feel when they retire and their pension pot is that much smaller because of BP's destruction?
And how are UK pensioners going to feel when they retire and their pension pot is that much smaller because of BP's destruction?
Sunday, 16 May 2010
A thought on the media
Vladimir raises an interesting question here:
Now, I'm not convinced that there actually is an "iron control" of the mass media. It simply isn't necessary that there should be. And I think most journalists and editors and proprietors would be indignant that anyone questioned their independence. (Editors may not be entirely independent of their proprietors and journalists may not be entirely independent of their editors, but that's a different matter -- I'm talking about whether the Conservative or Labour Party "directs" the media one way or the other.)
What actually exists in the media is a complete lack of critical analysis of the underpinnings of our society. In other words, the media is filled to the brim with people who have bought in to the cozy consensus, completely.
There is a general acceptance that some form of social democracy is the way forward. While some people think that government should do things better or smarter or more, there is never any question that the government should do something. Anybody who does so is swiftly dismissed as a tin-foil-hatter or some other disparaging description.
Nobody really wants to think too hard about how you underpin society. And very few people like taking complete ownership of their lives, which is why social democracy is so popular.
It's all a question of perspective. To a hard-core Labour voter, Tory policies are awful. The slightest dent in the low of the fountain of state money is a pernicious evil. To a libertarian, there is such a minor difference between them that you might as well vote for one or the other by flipping a coin. A libertarian has a completely different frame of reference.
If you want to change that "Islington mindset", you need to keep challenging the foundations of those beliefs. Write to the papers, or the BBC or whoever, introducing small challenges to make readers think. Don't rant or rage (that's what blogs are for!) but just chip away at the foundation set of beliefs. If this happens in sufficient numbers, from a sufficiently large number of readers, we can maybe get newspapers to challenge their base assumptions.
And that's how that apparent "iron control of the media" will begin to crack.
If you have PR and a parliament full of social democrats, then you are stuck with both, because the social democrats no longer need to win local support within each constituency. They just need the broad support of the population, and with their iron control of mass media this is never hard to arrange.
Now, I'm not convinced that there actually is an "iron control" of the mass media. It simply isn't necessary that there should be. And I think most journalists and editors and proprietors would be indignant that anyone questioned their independence. (Editors may not be entirely independent of their proprietors and journalists may not be entirely independent of their editors, but that's a different matter -- I'm talking about whether the Conservative or Labour Party "directs" the media one way or the other.)
What actually exists in the media is a complete lack of critical analysis of the underpinnings of our society. In other words, the media is filled to the brim with people who have bought in to the cozy consensus, completely.
There is a general acceptance that some form of social democracy is the way forward. While some people think that government should do things better or smarter or more, there is never any question that the government should do something. Anybody who does so is swiftly dismissed as a tin-foil-hatter or some other disparaging description.
Nobody really wants to think too hard about how you underpin society. And very few people like taking complete ownership of their lives, which is why social democracy is so popular.
It's all a question of perspective. To a hard-core Labour voter, Tory policies are awful. The slightest dent in the low of the fountain of state money is a pernicious evil. To a libertarian, there is such a minor difference between them that you might as well vote for one or the other by flipping a coin. A libertarian has a completely different frame of reference.
If you want to change that "Islington mindset", you need to keep challenging the foundations of those beliefs. Write to the papers, or the BBC or whoever, introducing small challenges to make readers think. Don't rant or rage (that's what blogs are for!) but just chip away at the foundation set of beliefs. If this happens in sufficient numbers, from a sufficiently large number of readers, we can maybe get newspapers to challenge their base assumptions.
And that's how that apparent "iron control of the media" will begin to crack.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Could PR actually give us something different?
Morlock, in the comments here, made me think: if PR makes it more difficult for parties to lurch to the left or the right, then maybe Cameron could actually achieve something useful, if only out of necessity.
The thought (such as it is!) goes like this:
Britain is in a financial crisis. The state is pissing away money faster than it can print it. Cameron has little option but to cut up the credit card and get the "swingeing cuts" axe out.
Blood starts pouring, the state gets 25% smaller (not enough, but hey ho!), people start getting angry, more cuts are needed, Cameron has the taste for power and so offers a PR referendum to the Limp Dumbs in exchange for propping him up for another couple of years.
The Limp Dumbs agree, Cameron cuts the state even more and in a rage against the Tories, the public votes overwhelming for PR.
The state is now half the size it was before, very manageable and the ungrateful public now lock the political model in at that level.
And then I woke up and my coffee was cold.
The thought (such as it is!) goes like this:
Britain is in a financial crisis. The state is pissing away money faster than it can print it. Cameron has little option but to cut up the credit card and get the "swingeing cuts" axe out.
Blood starts pouring, the state gets 25% smaller (not enough, but hey ho!), people start getting angry, more cuts are needed, Cameron has the taste for power and so offers a PR referendum to the Limp Dumbs in exchange for propping him up for another couple of years.
The Limp Dumbs agree, Cameron cuts the state even more and in a rage against the Tories, the public votes overwhelming for PR.
The state is now half the size it was before, very manageable and the ungrateful public now lock the political model in at that level.
And then I woke up and my coffee was cold.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
I don't really understand the problem
I really do struggle with why politicians won't say the "c-word". The papers are full of examples of profligate waste that get people exercised. And yet no-one wants to tackle our frightening government debt.
Labour have us on course for a £1.4trillion debt. The Tories have us on course for a £1.399999trillion debt. The SocDems probably have us on course for a £1.5trillion debt, but that's academic.
Are taxpayers really that well-trained as milch cows that we won't accept that we can cut the state's profligacy without any pain to ourselves?
Put me in charge. I'll fucking sort it all out.
Labour have us on course for a £1.4trillion debt. The Tories have us on course for a £1.399999trillion debt. The SocDems probably have us on course for a £1.5trillion debt, but that's academic.
Are taxpayers really that well-trained as milch cows that we won't accept that we can cut the state's profligacy without any pain to ourselves?
Put me in charge. I'll fucking sort it all out.
Friday, 9 April 2010
The Dangers of Centralised Power - Part 1
I was reminded of the great Swine Flu non-pandemic of 2009 and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that didn't ensue, despite the World Health Organisation's prognostications.
And an observation in the comments stirred something in my brain:
Ironically, this comment was made by Letters From A Tory, who no doubt will be doing his very best to make sure that the Tories get to decide which contracts get signed with the government for the next five years and is doubtlessly confident that his tribe is populated by noble, faultless people who will make the right decision every time.
But back in the real world, the reality of it is this: people make bad decisions all the time. I've been divorced twice. I've made loads of terrible decisions and in almost all the cases, I can hand on heart say that my motivation was good. In some cases, even noble.
The good thing about my bad decisions is that they may have affected people, but at the very worst (and it was probably my very worst decision ever) it affected a few dozen people.
Nobody died, or was even hurt. At worst, they were angry, inconvenienced and discomforted. So with the "power" that I had, the worst decision that I took affected less than 40 people and did them no material harm.
Let's look at what happens when you centralise power, though. A while ago, a number of councils decided to invest our money in Icelandic saving schemes. In doing what seemed like a very good idea at the time, they fucked up royally and threw away billions of our money. Services had to be cut, taxpayers had to be squeezed even harder, thousands of old, poor and disabled people who depend on council largesse certainly suffered as a consequence.
The faceless bureaucrats who made the decision are still there, still making more nobly-motivated bad decisions.
Now look further up the scale. The British government signed a contract with no "get-out" clause to buy tons of vaccine off the back of this scare. I heard something like a billion Pound Sterling was involved. I've also read scare stories about the side effects of the vaccine. It may not be statistically significant, but if just one person died because of that bad decision, that's a terrible cost. And if that was a billion Pounds of our money that was cynically thrown away, think about how manyInclusive Diversity Outreach Co-ordinators schoolz-'n'-hospitalz it could have funded. And of course, the person making that decision is still doing that job, making more bad decisions for the greater good.
So, a decision which directly cost you a night's beers or a tank of fuel could also have killed someone. Which seems like a better deal, a night out or a corpse? It's not a difficult choice is it?
The faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat who made that bad decision was probably bounced into it by the panic created by another unaccountable quango and the no "get-out" clause was probably in exchange for a better price. So, the decision was made for perfectly valid, noble reasons, but it was an incredibly bad decision.
Now look further up the scale: we have the United Nations and the European Union, both of which are accruing decision-making power to themselves. Now imagine the potential impact of and EU-wide or UN-wide bad decision. Look at the EU and their shit "low-carbon" lights, packed with poisonous mercury, inconveniencing half-a-billion people. Look at the swine flu thing (WHO is part of the UN), where millions of people around the world got ripped off via their governments and probably dozens or hundreds of people died taking the vaccines.
The greater the centralisation of power, the more people suffer from each bad decision.
And an observation in the comments stirred something in my brain:
Well, at least someone did well out of it – the company who got the multi-million pound contract from the Government to produce the vaccine.
Ironically, this comment was made by Letters From A Tory, who no doubt will be doing his very best to make sure that the Tories get to decide which contracts get signed with the government for the next five years and is doubtlessly confident that his tribe is populated by noble, faultless people who will make the right decision every time.
But back in the real world, the reality of it is this: people make bad decisions all the time. I've been divorced twice. I've made loads of terrible decisions and in almost all the cases, I can hand on heart say that my motivation was good. In some cases, even noble.
The good thing about my bad decisions is that they may have affected people, but at the very worst (and it was probably my very worst decision ever) it affected a few dozen people.
Nobody died, or was even hurt. At worst, they were angry, inconvenienced and discomforted. So with the "power" that I had, the worst decision that I took affected less than 40 people and did them no material harm.
Let's look at what happens when you centralise power, though. A while ago, a number of councils decided to invest our money in Icelandic saving schemes. In doing what seemed like a very good idea at the time, they fucked up royally and threw away billions of our money. Services had to be cut, taxpayers had to be squeezed even harder, thousands of old, poor and disabled people who depend on council largesse certainly suffered as a consequence.
The faceless bureaucrats who made the decision are still there, still making more nobly-motivated bad decisions.
Now look further up the scale. The British government signed a contract with no "get-out" clause to buy tons of vaccine off the back of this scare. I heard something like a billion Pound Sterling was involved. I've also read scare stories about the side effects of the vaccine. It may not be statistically significant, but if just one person died because of that bad decision, that's a terrible cost. And if that was a billion Pounds of our money that was cynically thrown away, think about how many
So, a decision which directly cost you a night's beers or a tank of fuel could also have killed someone. Which seems like a better deal, a night out or a corpse? It's not a difficult choice is it?
The faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat who made that bad decision was probably bounced into it by the panic created by another unaccountable quango and the no "get-out" clause was probably in exchange for a better price. So, the decision was made for perfectly valid, noble reasons, but it was an incredibly bad decision.
Now look further up the scale: we have the United Nations and the European Union, both of which are accruing decision-making power to themselves. Now imagine the potential impact of and EU-wide or UN-wide bad decision. Look at the EU and their shit "low-carbon" lights, packed with poisonous mercury, inconveniencing half-a-billion people. Look at the swine flu thing (WHO is part of the UN), where millions of people around the world got ripped off via their governments and probably dozens or hundreds of people died taking the vaccines.
The greater the centralisation of power, the more people suffer from each bad decision.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Medical licensing
Following on from my thoughts about what a libertarian driving model might look like, I then thought about other kinds of licensing, specifically one of the issues that causes me the most confusion: medical licensing, or the licensing of both medicines and medical practitioners.
Although I am adamantly in favour of a free market in medical practice and in providing nostrums it is on the basis that the medical practitioners, purveyors of medicines and manufacturers of medicines are somehow competent to do so. While I am quite happy for Boateng and Demetriou to open their competition to Marks and Spencer from their spare bedroom, I'm considerably more ambivalent about the idea of going to Boateng and Demetriou Proctology Practitioners or sending my daughter to Paul Gadd, Pediatrician.
While doctors are fairly regularly "struck off" for various shenanigans and pharma companies occasionally display questionable ethics in their research and we have the odd Shipman-alike, by and large, I think most people are reasonably comfortable when they go to a doctor, he or she is not a complete charlatan. They may be fucking useless (and all the doctors I've dealt with in the UK seem to need detailed lessons in telling their anus from their antecubital fossa) and ... OK, so the UK's doctors may not be the best example for this. But I've been in countries where I did trust the doctors pretty much implicitly or did trust that if I tried a couple, I'd eventually find someone that I did trust among the list of regulated doctors.
But if there was no regulation, we'd have to do a lot more research into our doctors. So, gentle reader: does the convenience of medical regulation outweigh the cost of the barrier to entry? Is there a way to square this circle?
Is it possible that a voluntary submission to regulation to reassure the average punter while still allowing anyone who wants to, to practice, dispense or produce medicine with a greater warning of caveat emptor to the consumer?
Although I am adamantly in favour of a free market in medical practice and in providing nostrums it is on the basis that the medical practitioners, purveyors of medicines and manufacturers of medicines are somehow competent to do so. While I am quite happy for Boateng and Demetriou to open their competition to Marks and Spencer from their spare bedroom, I'm considerably more ambivalent about the idea of going to Boateng and Demetriou Proctology Practitioners or sending my daughter to Paul Gadd, Pediatrician.
While doctors are fairly regularly "struck off" for various shenanigans and pharma companies occasionally display questionable ethics in their research and we have the odd Shipman-alike, by and large, I think most people are reasonably comfortable when they go to a doctor, he or she is not a complete charlatan. They may be fucking useless (and all the doctors I've dealt with in the UK seem to need detailed lessons in telling their anus from their antecubital fossa) and ... OK, so the UK's doctors may not be the best example for this. But I've been in countries where I did trust the doctors pretty much implicitly or did trust that if I tried a couple, I'd eventually find someone that I did trust among the list of regulated doctors.
But if there was no regulation, we'd have to do a lot more research into our doctors. So, gentle reader: does the convenience of medical regulation outweigh the cost of the barrier to entry? Is there a way to square this circle?
Is it possible that a voluntary submission to regulation to reassure the average punter while still allowing anyone who wants to, to practice, dispense or produce medicine with a greater warning of caveat emptor to the consumer?
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
An horrific thought
You just know that in his sock drawer, Ed Bollocks has a video of him and the missus playing the beast with two backs.
Just imagine the cum faces.
Have a nice day!
Just imagine the cum faces.
Have a nice day!
Sunday, 8 November 2009
It's always astonishing ...
... how quickly "winter" sneaks up on us. Seems like only last week it was autumnal, and now at lunch time it's already gloomy and feels like the sun is close to the horizon again. And when you drive, the watery sun somehow seems to hurt your eyes a lot more than in the summer...
Friday, 6 November 2009
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Curious
Has anyone else noticed that on certain days, there is one make of car that is responsible for all the idiotic driving manoeuvres? Today it was the last iteration of the Ford Mondeo.
Cunts.
Cunts.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
"Right: you and me in the parking lot, now."
I was reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle today. He has the following:
And I suddenly had this vision of Badger Brows going into the "war room" and losing it. Just imagine the two of them swinging wildly at each other in Downing Street while the rest of the cabinet and their police guard stand around shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Well, why not? They've done just about every other nonsensical thing there is to do...
Meanwhile, Alistair Darling said he had maintained the downturn was going to be severe. Darling made clear his irritation with Brown when he said that he has been warning people to be cautious. "We are not out of the woods yet, I have always said, when people were talking about this quarter, we had to be cautious. There is a lot of uncertainty in this country, there is a lot of uncertainty in other countries as well."
And I suddenly had this vision of Badger Brows going into the "war room" and losing it. Just imagine the two of them swinging wildly at each other in Downing Street while the rest of the cabinet and their police guard stand around shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Well, why not? They've done just about every other nonsensical thing there is to do...
Thursday, 8 October 2009
The death of the desktop metaphor?
Carpsio, who knows fuck all about anything, has another thought-provoker here:
Yep. Even the much vaunted Mac interface is pretty much that.
The problem with the comparison of the iPhone interface to the desktop metaphor is that the iPhone is a completely different type of device to the PC. If the PC was as flexible in its user interface as an iPhone, he'd have a point. But the fact of the matter is that when all you have to hand is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And with the relatively inflexible UI offered by screen, keyboard and mouse, the last fucking thing you want is to have to try and guess how the fuck the application wants to be molested.
Another thing is that, Carpsio and his one-handed web-surfing habits notwithstanding, most PC's are still ostensibly used for work-related stuff, and can you imagine what a complete pain in the cunt it would be if your email client opened, navigated and closed in a completely different way to your calendar? Etc.
So, yes, the desktop metaphor is dated, and there are better ways of doing stuff if you can get the seriously clever and flexible UI bits ... but first you have to get the seriously clever and flexible UI bits!
And that, I think, is still a long way away.
I’m sure I’m late to this whole thing (I blog once a week – in my underpants – and I really don’t know shit about technology) but having just had Windows 7 installed, I’ve just noticed that the “desktop” metaphor suddenly feels incredibly dated and stale. I’m looking at Microsoft’s state-of-the-art OS – the full-blooded Professional version, no less – and it seems to me that really I’m looking at Windows 3.1 with shinier icons.
Yep. Even the much vaunted Mac interface is pretty much that.
I used to work in usability, so took the word of Nielsen as gospel. First rule of interfaces? Consistency! So we’ve all spent the last epoch Doing As Microsoft Have Done. We put menus at the top. Close buttons in the top right. You right click for context menus. From these rules we draw our interpretation of what the software is doing.
Only, when you think about it – what does a game of FIFA 2010 have in common with a news website? And what does a news website have in common with a photography website? There are so many things out there now that doesn’t the idea of a single heterogeneous interface strike you as…. daft?
The problem with the comparison of the iPhone interface to the desktop metaphor is that the iPhone is a completely different type of device to the PC. If the PC was as flexible in its user interface as an iPhone, he'd have a point. But the fact of the matter is that when all you have to hand is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And with the relatively inflexible UI offered by screen, keyboard and mouse, the last fucking thing you want is to have to try and guess how the fuck the application wants to be molested.
Another thing is that, Carpsio and his one-handed web-surfing habits notwithstanding, most PC's are still ostensibly used for work-related stuff, and can you imagine what a complete pain in the cunt it would be if your email client opened, navigated and closed in a completely different way to your calendar? Etc.
So, yes, the desktop metaphor is dated, and there are better ways of doing stuff if you can get the seriously clever and flexible UI bits ... but first you have to get the seriously clever and flexible UI bits!
And that, I think, is still a long way away.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Socialist music
Yesterday on twatter, I had a debate with "The War On Culture" about whether left- or right-wing governments produce better music. It's an interesting concept and I hope he decides to bring the debate over to my blog. It started because I took the piss out of one of his twats, leading to the response:
I thought that was a curious thing to say. Do musicians really take their lead from the government as to what kind of music they should produce, or does the music just reflect their take on society at that moment? And is a musical form really that closely aligned to a particular left or right-wing government?
Anyway:
This is a very subjective opinion to start with: was psychedelia really more interesting than glam? Was punk really more interesting than New Romantic? Psychedelia really was an expression in drug-fuelled self-indulgence which is, in my opinion, a most libertarian music form and ironically, it's the only music form which is both a) primarily British and b) is entirely contained within a single government; Labour in the late 60's. So actually, to me, it looks like psychedelia is a complete refutation (by celebrating the wants of the individual) of statism and hence, socialism. I'm bloody sure they weren't thinking about it in thouse terms, though. They were thinking "Wow! Drugs! Chicks! Music! Money! Cool!" But even if my take on the libertarianism inherent in it, psychedelia is pretty much a footnote to musical history and largely irrelevant, apart from the prog rock that it spawned. Under the Tories.
According to TWOC, handily:
Gosh, I never realised what a musical debt we owed to Labour. Bands quickly formed all their visions for the next decade under the genial gaze of Wilson before those eeeeeeeevil Tories came to power.
Looking at Labour's bully-boy history and creation of "denormalisation" over the last 12 years, I wonder how someone can say this with a straight face. But anyway, I don't think that the "limitless experimentation" ended under the Tories.
Furthermore, nobody is buying Piper at the Gates of Dawn any more, and they never really did. Dark Side of the moon, however ...
And glam is still accessible. T-Rex, Bowie, Queen, Roxy Music - were those really less impressive artists than, The Yardbirds, Cream, the Beatles and Pink Floyd in the psychedelic era? The Yardbirds and Cream and the Beatles all made their names elsewhere and for other music. Floyd is a relative rarity because they started as a psychedelic band and went on from there. And really, if Syd hadn't been replaced by David Gilmour (or someone else, even) it's unlikely that Floyd would have been anything but irrelevant today.
Moving on to the assertion of punk being more interesting than New Romantic ... well, that's an interesting assertion considering the wide range of New Romantic music that was out there, but it's also entirely fallacious to say that punk was a product of socialist Britain:
Which, lest we forget, was the (Republican) Ford presidency.
Once again, apart from a very small handful of accessible tunes, how much of punk music is relevant today, compared to New Romantic music? Ironically, Johnny Rotten is personally advertising butter whereas Adam Ant has cannily allowed someone to bring one of his greatest videos back to life courtesy of Pimms. Which one of them has held on to their "artistic integrity" better?
He then went on to say:
Certainly, musicians rail for or against politicians all the time, but to actually develop an entire new genre out of the behaviour of just one President? Wow. Maybe we need more Nixons.
Every bit of musical history I've ever read has said that punk was a reaction against the prog rock more than anything else. The same jaded, overblown prog rock that TWOC was quite happy to claims as being fully developed and pre-planned entirely under Labour benevolence.
It's interesting to compare my perception of psychedelia as a refutation of socialism with the idea that punk was a reaction to Nixon. I'm not claiming that psychedelics consciously set out to rebel against socialism, I'm claiming that their behaviour was Libertarian: they did stuff irrespective of what the state said. TWOC is claiming that an entire musical genre was spawned directly because of one politician.
I can see individual songs or even in rare cases entire albums having a political objective, but I can't really see any musical evolution as anything other than a reaction to other music. And I really can't see drug-addled musos being disciplined enough to set out an entire musical direction under the benevolent gaze of a tolerant Labour government and not come up with anything useful under the Tories. Especially when the result of most elections is not a foregone conclusion and they don't have any better idea of the future than the rest of us.
If we look at the vast swathes of influential music produced under a largely right-wing American rule compared to the absolute nothingness that came out of socialist Russia and the eastern bloc, I really do struggle to find anything other than wishful thinking in the original twattering.
tory govts lead to music that is style over substance..socialist govts to music that is creative and inventive...
I thought that was a curious thing to say. Do musicians really take their lead from the government as to what kind of music they should produce, or does the music just reflect their take on society at that moment? And is a musical form really that closely aligned to a particular left or right-wing government?
Anyway:
psychedelia vs glam...punk vs new romantic .. always more interesting music under socialists!! ;-)
This is a very subjective opinion to start with: was psychedelia really more interesting than glam? Was punk really more interesting than New Romantic? Psychedelia really was an expression in drug-fuelled self-indulgence which is, in my opinion, a most libertarian music form and ironically, it's the only music form which is both a) primarily British and b) is entirely contained within a single government; Labour in the late 60's. So actually, to me, it looks like psychedelia is a complete refutation (by celebrating the wants of the individual) of statism and hence, socialism. I'm bloody sure they weren't thinking about it in thouse terms, though. They were thinking "Wow! Drugs! Chicks! Music! Money! Cool!" But even if my take on the libertarianism inherent in it, psychedelia is pretty much a footnote to musical history and largely irrelevant, apart from the prog rock that it spawned. Under the Tories.
According to TWOC, handily:
yes, floyd, genesis, emerson formed their vision 68/69 under labour rule!!
Gosh, I never realised what a musical debt we owed to Labour. Bands quickly formed all their visions for the next decade under the genial gaze of Wilson before those eeeeeeeevil Tories came to power.
psychdelia was abt limitless experimentation not pure attitude which can only really happen under cultural flexibility..
Looking at Labour's bully-boy history and creation of "denormalisation" over the last 12 years, I wonder how someone can say this with a straight face. But anyway, I don't think that the "limitless experimentation" ended under the Tories.
Furthermore, nobody is buying Piper at the Gates of Dawn any more, and they never really did. Dark Side of the moon, however ...
And glam is still accessible. T-Rex, Bowie, Queen, Roxy Music - were those really less impressive artists than, The Yardbirds, Cream, the Beatles and Pink Floyd in the psychedelic era? The Yardbirds and Cream and the Beatles all made their names elsewhere and for other music. Floyd is a relative rarity because they started as a psychedelic band and went on from there. And really, if Syd hadn't been replaced by David Gilmour (or someone else, even) it's unlikely that Floyd would have been anything but irrelevant today.
Moving on to the assertion of punk being more interesting than New Romantic ... well, that's an interesting assertion considering the wide range of New Romantic music that was out there, but it's also entirely fallacious to say that punk was a product of socialist Britain:
Punk rock developed between 1974 and 1976, originally in the United States
Which, lest we forget, was the (Republican) Ford presidency.
Once again, apart from a very small handful of accessible tunes, how much of punk music is relevant today, compared to New Romantic music? Ironically, Johnny Rotten is personally advertising butter whereas Adam Ant has cannily allowed someone to bring one of his greatest videos back to life courtesy of Pimms. Which one of them has held on to their "artistic integrity" better?
He then went on to say:
punk in US was an attitude...reaction against Nixon
Certainly, musicians rail for or against politicians all the time, but to actually develop an entire new genre out of the behaviour of just one President? Wow. Maybe we need more Nixons.
Every bit of musical history I've ever read has said that punk was a reaction against the prog rock more than anything else. The same jaded, overblown prog rock that TWOC was quite happy to claims as being fully developed and pre-planned entirely under Labour benevolence.
It's interesting to compare my perception of psychedelia as a refutation of socialism with the idea that punk was a reaction to Nixon. I'm not claiming that psychedelics consciously set out to rebel against socialism, I'm claiming that their behaviour was Libertarian: they did stuff irrespective of what the state said. TWOC is claiming that an entire musical genre was spawned directly because of one politician.
I can see individual songs or even in rare cases entire albums having a political objective, but I can't really see any musical evolution as anything other than a reaction to other music. And I really can't see drug-addled musos being disciplined enough to set out an entire musical direction under the benevolent gaze of a tolerant Labour government and not come up with anything useful under the Tories. Especially when the result of most elections is not a foregone conclusion and they don't have any better idea of the future than the rest of us.
If we look at the vast swathes of influential music produced under a largely right-wing American rule compared to the absolute nothingness that came out of socialist Russia and the eastern bloc, I really do struggle to find anything other than wishful thinking in the original twattering.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Clearly a fit bugger
A random thought about the release of the Lockerbie bomber: I've lived through a loved one dying from cancer, and three months from her eventual release from misery, she needed help to sit up in bed. (To be fair, it obviously wasn't prostate cancer!) But damn, he looked in good shape for someone dying of cancer. A bit pale, but then he was in fucking Scotland, wasn't he? I know Scottish lumberjacks who look like ghosts. (Even Oleuanna says she's turning white up there.)
I suspect that actually they knew that he wasn't guilty and this was some sort of fudge to get him out of jail while still pretending that some kind of justice had been served. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of deal whereby he or his family would be minted up and "made", in much the same way that someone who didn't rat on his accomplices would be "blessed" by the Don.
Let's face it, wouldn't you take a deal that required you to sacrifice 8 years of your life to live in the "misery-lite" of a UK prison in exchange for you and yours never having to lift a finger again? Especially if you knew that no-one would ever be able to come after you?
And that eventually evidence would be "found" exonerating you completely, and allowing you to sue your captors for even more money? Wouldn't that really just piss in the face of Once-Great Britain even more? Luckily, I can't see that happening. No, sirree ... no chance of that at all. Ever. Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Update: The Speccie is really rather cynical about the whole thing.
I suspect that actually they knew that he wasn't guilty and this was some sort of fudge to get him out of jail while still pretending that some kind of justice had been served. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of deal whereby he or his family would be minted up and "made", in much the same way that someone who didn't rat on his accomplices would be "blessed" by the Don.
Let's face it, wouldn't you take a deal that required you to sacrifice 8 years of your life to live in the "misery-lite" of a UK prison in exchange for you and yours never having to lift a finger again? Especially if you knew that no-one would ever be able to come after you?
And that eventually evidence would be "found" exonerating you completely, and allowing you to sue your captors for even more money? Wouldn't that really just piss in the face of Once-Great Britain even more? Luckily, I can't see that happening. No, sirree ... no chance of that at all. Ever. Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Update: The Speccie is really rather cynical about the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)