The title of this post is the title of a book by George Orwell. I read it....strewth......nearly twenty years ago now. Its about a chap who goes back to the visit the place he spent his childhood in, hoping to re-experience some of those things that made it so special. He finds that time - unsurprisingly - has not waited for him, and that many of the things he looked forward to seeing again are now gone, just like many of the people.
Its a book about nostalgia really, and how you must realise that you can never go back. Those days are gone. I always remind someone I know who is very nostalgic that eventually, he'll be nostalgic for these days too, so enjoy all hell out of them while you can. I know I'll look back on this time very fondly indeed, as I have a lot to feel fortunate about.
However, there is a lot going on right now, and I need a break. Often, my breaks would come in the form of music festivals. Sadly, finances and line-ups that defy my age and musical tastes mean I rarely go anymore, and when I do go, they tire me to the point that I need another break after them.
I'd like to come up for air right now. I know you can never go back, but just some greenery, some sunshine, and less stress would be marvellous. So here is a poem by William Butler Yeats, which sums up my mood for today. I hope you all know your own way of coming up for air, and I hope you get enough of a lungful so that you can cope with the 21st century once again.
I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Sunday, 3 February 2013
Matrices and Simulations
I haven't written a philosophical paper for a couple of years now, and I'm not really sure this is one. Regardless, what I'm about to write will probably produce derision in many, because in order to wrap your head around it your identity and place in the world is fundamentally changed.
Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.
Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.
Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.
Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.
The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.
Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.
So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.
The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.
Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.
Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.
Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.
Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.
Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.
The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.
Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.
So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.
The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.
Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
A Quickie
Haven't written for a while but this made me chuckle so much today I wish to preserve it in pixels for years to come.
In a seminar on Abnormal Psychology, we were treated to the 'teachers friend', the DVD. This one was by the national hero, all round splendid fellow and wordsmith Stephen Fry. Speaking of his problems with manic depression, the program followed him around as he took in old stomping grounds and met people similar to himself.
One of these people was Rick Stein, the TV chef. Now, Mr Stein suffers from bi-polar depression, and claims that it is hereditary. His father not only suffered from it, but threw himself off a cliff in front of his sister because of it. Suicide and manic depression are common, and dying from manic phases because the individual is so hyped up they forget to eat or drink have also been documented. The program took Rick, Stephen, and of course the viewer, back to the cliff where it happened, and it was clear that Rick Stein had both come to terms with the incident, and was still disturbed by it.
After the program finished, we were urged to comment on the things that surprised us about the program. I myself didn't realise manic episodes could get quite so manic, nor last quite so long. Others were surprised that kids as young as 4 can be diagnosed with it (Americans......sheesh).
However, one girl.....one girl.......she was surprised by something different.
When asking if there was anything else we wished to state as surprising, she put her hand up and said, "I didn't know Rick Stein's dad committed suicide."
The tutor looked at her, looked to the floor, then looked around the room and said "Anything else?". Leaving the completely ridiculous statement hanging in the air like a fetid Pinata which doesn't need to be struck with a stick, its spilled out its awfulness all over the room anyway.
I was initially embarrassed for her, then saw the hilarious side. Bless her all to hell and back. They did ask what we found surprising, but I think she took it a tad too literally.
In a seminar on Abnormal Psychology, we were treated to the 'teachers friend', the DVD. This one was by the national hero, all round splendid fellow and wordsmith Stephen Fry. Speaking of his problems with manic depression, the program followed him around as he took in old stomping grounds and met people similar to himself.
One of these people was Rick Stein, the TV chef. Now, Mr Stein suffers from bi-polar depression, and claims that it is hereditary. His father not only suffered from it, but threw himself off a cliff in front of his sister because of it. Suicide and manic depression are common, and dying from manic phases because the individual is so hyped up they forget to eat or drink have also been documented. The program took Rick, Stephen, and of course the viewer, back to the cliff where it happened, and it was clear that Rick Stein had both come to terms with the incident, and was still disturbed by it.
After the program finished, we were urged to comment on the things that surprised us about the program. I myself didn't realise manic episodes could get quite so manic, nor last quite so long. Others were surprised that kids as young as 4 can be diagnosed with it (Americans......sheesh).
However, one girl.....one girl.......she was surprised by something different.
When asking if there was anything else we wished to state as surprising, she put her hand up and said, "I didn't know Rick Stein's dad committed suicide."
The tutor looked at her, looked to the floor, then looked around the room and said "Anything else?". Leaving the completely ridiculous statement hanging in the air like a fetid Pinata which doesn't need to be struck with a stick, its spilled out its awfulness all over the room anyway.
I was initially embarrassed for her, then saw the hilarious side. Bless her all to hell and back. They did ask what we found surprising, but I think she took it a tad too literally.
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
Ahoy There
I am old enough to remember a time before the internet. Oh they were dark days I can tell you. If you wanted to know something you had to go to a library or your book collection and look it up. They had these things called Indexes in the back of the books that were like Google only not as varied in choice.
Now, the internet is here to stay. Its a good thing too. Sure it could be seen as making people lazy, with so much information just a click away, but surely that's just jealousy. If I'd have had the internet as a kid I think I'd be a bit more knowledgeable now, just through curiosity.
With the internet comes the sharing of information. Not just scientific, verified information; there's also the problem that anyone can put whatever they like on the net, and some moron can read it and take it as red. They think that as it floats in cyber space it must have some kind of truth to it. It really doesn't. Being on the internet is most definitely not a criterion for truth. I mean look at me here, I can put whatever I like on here and no-one's reading it anyway, but if they were I could write whatever I wanted and there's a danger someone would take it as the truth when I was only joking.
So we don't only share information, we share files. Files can be movies, documents, or music. Piracy is a huge problem right now, but only for the previously wealthy. Film studios and record labels are watching between their fingers as they see millions of pounds in revenue come crashing down around them. To be fair, they were warned about this, and they didn't act. Now they find themselves losing cash hand over fist while anyone with BitTorrent makes off like a bandit.
Dave Grohl, or as I call him, Uncle Dave, has stated that he thinks music piracy is fine. He's okay with it, thinks it should be encouraged. Ed Sheeran claimed yesterday that he's sold about 1.5 million albums, yet his album has been downloaded illegally a further 8 million times. He's fine with it too. He's flattered even.
Dave was in Nirvana, and he was in Queens of the Stone Age, and he IS the Foo Fighters. As such, Dave has sold millions of albums. I saw an interview with him once where he said there's basically nothing he can't afford. So he's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?
Ed Sheeran, Brit award winner, seller of a million and a half units, having number one albums and successful tours. He's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?
What these two nicompoops forget, is there's people like me out there. People who dip a toe in the stagnant water of the music industry and find it cold and uninviting. At my level, you get maybe 3 or 4 grand together to make a record. You need to sell a good 500 copies at full wack to start that thing called 'profit'. Sure we do it. Now. But how long will it last?
As I type I can direct you to at least 3 websites that have download links for albums I have helped to write, record, and release. I don't have the luxury of taking days to write a song, I have to fit it in as and when. Recording is a process of 'we can't do that because we don't have enough time', rather than indulging ourselves in sonic experimentation. Art work is usually done either by myself and other members of the band or by 'mates' at 'mates rates'.
In summary then; its a fucking ball ache. But, hopefully, the end result is worth it. Small record labels need revenue. They need money to give to other bands to make more records. They're not doing it believing they're going to sign the next Coldplay or Metallica. They're doing it because they have a love for music and they wish to perpetuate the genre of music they're working in.
If all music were just put on the net as per Grohl and Sheeran, the big bands and artists would remain. The smaller, independent artists would disappear. The only way they could make money is touring, but labels provide 'tour support' for that, and boy do you need it. That or sponsorship. Of course, there are many out there who claim they download illegally and then 'get into' that band or singer, and as such purchase all subsequent releases.
That's fine, but that's what the single was made for. Its promotion. Its a case of 'Here's what I sound like, if you like it, buy the album'. Its a taster, a teaser. You don't need the whole album for that.
The current trend of piracy will, at least in the near future, never stop. The Pirate Bay was dismantled, but Isohunt remains. Cut a head off and another two will grow in its place. Quite what impact this will have on the struggling artist will remain to be seen, but semi-professional bands don't need the kind of shit Sheeran and Grohl are talking. Piracy is not okay, because it affects a wide range of people. Sure Grohl doesn't need the cash, but I fucking do. As such, he should consider his musical brethren before talking rubbish.
If you love your music, you pay for it. You have to pay for everything else. If you don't, the only thing left might well be your packaged X-Factor, manufactured bullshit, as that's all the record labels will be prepared to put their money behind.
Now, the internet is here to stay. Its a good thing too. Sure it could be seen as making people lazy, with so much information just a click away, but surely that's just jealousy. If I'd have had the internet as a kid I think I'd be a bit more knowledgeable now, just through curiosity.
With the internet comes the sharing of information. Not just scientific, verified information; there's also the problem that anyone can put whatever they like on the net, and some moron can read it and take it as red. They think that as it floats in cyber space it must have some kind of truth to it. It really doesn't. Being on the internet is most definitely not a criterion for truth. I mean look at me here, I can put whatever I like on here and no-one's reading it anyway, but if they were I could write whatever I wanted and there's a danger someone would take it as the truth when I was only joking.
So we don't only share information, we share files. Files can be movies, documents, or music. Piracy is a huge problem right now, but only for the previously wealthy. Film studios and record labels are watching between their fingers as they see millions of pounds in revenue come crashing down around them. To be fair, they were warned about this, and they didn't act. Now they find themselves losing cash hand over fist while anyone with BitTorrent makes off like a bandit.
Dave Grohl, or as I call him, Uncle Dave, has stated that he thinks music piracy is fine. He's okay with it, thinks it should be encouraged. Ed Sheeran claimed yesterday that he's sold about 1.5 million albums, yet his album has been downloaded illegally a further 8 million times. He's fine with it too. He's flattered even.
Dave was in Nirvana, and he was in Queens of the Stone Age, and he IS the Foo Fighters. As such, Dave has sold millions of albums. I saw an interview with him once where he said there's basically nothing he can't afford. So he's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?
Ed Sheeran, Brit award winner, seller of a million and a half units, having number one albums and successful tours. He's alright then. Why wouldn't he think its cool to share albums?
What these two nicompoops forget, is there's people like me out there. People who dip a toe in the stagnant water of the music industry and find it cold and uninviting. At my level, you get maybe 3 or 4 grand together to make a record. You need to sell a good 500 copies at full wack to start that thing called 'profit'. Sure we do it. Now. But how long will it last?
As I type I can direct you to at least 3 websites that have download links for albums I have helped to write, record, and release. I don't have the luxury of taking days to write a song, I have to fit it in as and when. Recording is a process of 'we can't do that because we don't have enough time', rather than indulging ourselves in sonic experimentation. Art work is usually done either by myself and other members of the band or by 'mates' at 'mates rates'.
In summary then; its a fucking ball ache. But, hopefully, the end result is worth it. Small record labels need revenue. They need money to give to other bands to make more records. They're not doing it believing they're going to sign the next Coldplay or Metallica. They're doing it because they have a love for music and they wish to perpetuate the genre of music they're working in.
If all music were just put on the net as per Grohl and Sheeran, the big bands and artists would remain. The smaller, independent artists would disappear. The only way they could make money is touring, but labels provide 'tour support' for that, and boy do you need it. That or sponsorship. Of course, there are many out there who claim they download illegally and then 'get into' that band or singer, and as such purchase all subsequent releases.
That's fine, but that's what the single was made for. Its promotion. Its a case of 'Here's what I sound like, if you like it, buy the album'. Its a taster, a teaser. You don't need the whole album for that.
The current trend of piracy will, at least in the near future, never stop. The Pirate Bay was dismantled, but Isohunt remains. Cut a head off and another two will grow in its place. Quite what impact this will have on the struggling artist will remain to be seen, but semi-professional bands don't need the kind of shit Sheeran and Grohl are talking. Piracy is not okay, because it affects a wide range of people. Sure Grohl doesn't need the cash, but I fucking do. As such, he should consider his musical brethren before talking rubbish.
If you love your music, you pay for it. You have to pay for everything else. If you don't, the only thing left might well be your packaged X-Factor, manufactured bullshit, as that's all the record labels will be prepared to put their money behind.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Bite The Hand That Feeds
Regrettably, the horrors of 9/11 have failed to make any real impact on the world where it really matters. We now have much stricter security at airports and major events, and we are currently fighting two vicious and - rather pointless - wars in the name of the attacks.
Where it should have made a change, but didn't, was in the realm of the religious. The thinking behind 9/11 has been attributed to religious beliefs, and how many Muslims want Islam to rule the world. 9/11 could have been seen as some kind of statement regarding that. However, the attacks on the Twin Towers are actually more layered. Bin Laden had a history with America, one that saw him once working for the CIA. Whatever happened between them, it was enough to piss Bin Laden off to the point where he twice attacked the World Trade Centre, and the second time he really did a number on it.
I can't imagine...I don't want to imagine...what it would have been like that day. I've been to Ground Zero. It was a desperately sad place that also had a great deal of tension remaining in the air. For those with family inside the towers, watching them collapse live on TV would have sucked the soul from them. For those with family on the planes, they might have found some relief, however small, from death being instantaneous.
What of the hijackers? As those in the second plane (and it was the second plane that made America realise they were under attack) swooped through the clear blue skies and headed towards their target, the pilots must have seen that their comrades in arms had done their bit. They had gone through with the plan. Did they feel elation? Fear? Pressure? That they'd made a mistake? That it wasn't worth it? Was there arguments in the cockpit or were they screaming religious verse and righteousness in the name of Allah? High-fiving each other at sight of the billowing smoke?
11 years on, almost to the day, and again Americans are murdered by Muslims. Touchy muslims as it happens. Thems what can't take a joke. A film that depicts the prophet Mohamed in a less-than-flattering light upset some people to the point where they saw fit to fire rockets at an embassy. A film then. A work of fiction. Mohamed then. A work of fiction. People dying for fiction? In 2012?
As I watch the coverage on the news, there is footage of people in Egypt burning the American flag. America gives Egypt 2 billion dollars a year in aid. 1.3 of which is military aid. They've given this money every year since 1979. That's a lot of dough right there.
70% of Egyptians cannot read or write. If they could, perhaps they might be aware of these facts. It seems to me that there is a trigger; a person or persons setting off this rage. People think differently in gangs. They seem to lose their common sense and a huge chunk of their morality. It comes with anonymity. Each considers the other as, or more, to blame. Recklessness and daring follow, and before you know it, there's a great deal going bad. If the learned know this, they can know how to manipulate the people they wish to manipulate into doing what they desire.
Aid to Egypt and Libya should now be stopped. If I was giving you money, generously out of my pocket, money that I really needed myself to fix something that was broken (my country), and you then attacked me, I'd tell you to do one where that money was concerned. Quite why I would continue to give money to people that loathe me to the point where they are burning my national flag is beyond me.
Whilst some parts of this planet excel, create, work, innovate, challenge, think and ponder; others....don't. They are trapped believing in fairies, magic, miracles, and an afterlife. It colours their thinking, their mood, their day, their actions, their everything. The human race, if it wishes to progress, needs to cut the shit. We need to get everyone on board. There needs to be an enlightenment. We are seemingly still in the dark ages.
I don't give a fuck about Mohamed. I don't believe in him, I don't believe he can't be offended either. Offence is not given, its taken. What offends me may not offend you, but that's fine. Live and let get-on-with. If I am offended by something, I can turn the other way, I can not pay any attention to it. Salman Rushdie was put into hiding, Kurt Westergaard was attacked with an axe, Jyllands Posten was burnt to death for publishing the cartoons Westergaard drew. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam. And now this. Now Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador in Libya.
All for religion. All for a fictitious character. Would you murder someone in the name of Snow White? Its a daft idea. This old thinking needs to die, not innocent people. If you were to walk down a street with a placard claiming that 'Jesus Was A Homo', you might get some derogatory looks, maybe some harsh words, but you'd live to walk another day. If you replaced Jesus with Mohamed, you would be in serious trouble. Serious trouble.
I feel edgy for claiming I don't give a fuck about this Mohamed character. Why should I feel that way? How much longer can this go on for? Imagine the rioting was about a book called.....oh I don't know...50 Shades Of Grey. The book would be banned, it would be out of print, it would be considered a danger. Because the Koran is religious, it cannot be banned. But it should be. So much violence in its name, so much grief and anger.
I feel like a teacher saying to the pupils 'If you can't play with it properly you can't have it'. But this is how it is with that damn book. We need to move on from religion, from idiocy, and from primitive violence and anger in the name of imaginary friends.
Where it should have made a change, but didn't, was in the realm of the religious. The thinking behind 9/11 has been attributed to religious beliefs, and how many Muslims want Islam to rule the world. 9/11 could have been seen as some kind of statement regarding that. However, the attacks on the Twin Towers are actually more layered. Bin Laden had a history with America, one that saw him once working for the CIA. Whatever happened between them, it was enough to piss Bin Laden off to the point where he twice attacked the World Trade Centre, and the second time he really did a number on it.
I can't imagine...I don't want to imagine...what it would have been like that day. I've been to Ground Zero. It was a desperately sad place that also had a great deal of tension remaining in the air. For those with family inside the towers, watching them collapse live on TV would have sucked the soul from them. For those with family on the planes, they might have found some relief, however small, from death being instantaneous.
What of the hijackers? As those in the second plane (and it was the second plane that made America realise they were under attack) swooped through the clear blue skies and headed towards their target, the pilots must have seen that their comrades in arms had done their bit. They had gone through with the plan. Did they feel elation? Fear? Pressure? That they'd made a mistake? That it wasn't worth it? Was there arguments in the cockpit or were they screaming religious verse and righteousness in the name of Allah? High-fiving each other at sight of the billowing smoke?
11 years on, almost to the day, and again Americans are murdered by Muslims. Touchy muslims as it happens. Thems what can't take a joke. A film that depicts the prophet Mohamed in a less-than-flattering light upset some people to the point where they saw fit to fire rockets at an embassy. A film then. A work of fiction. Mohamed then. A work of fiction. People dying for fiction? In 2012?
As I watch the coverage on the news, there is footage of people in Egypt burning the American flag. America gives Egypt 2 billion dollars a year in aid. 1.3 of which is military aid. They've given this money every year since 1979. That's a lot of dough right there.
70% of Egyptians cannot read or write. If they could, perhaps they might be aware of these facts. It seems to me that there is a trigger; a person or persons setting off this rage. People think differently in gangs. They seem to lose their common sense and a huge chunk of their morality. It comes with anonymity. Each considers the other as, or more, to blame. Recklessness and daring follow, and before you know it, there's a great deal going bad. If the learned know this, they can know how to manipulate the people they wish to manipulate into doing what they desire.
Aid to Egypt and Libya should now be stopped. If I was giving you money, generously out of my pocket, money that I really needed myself to fix something that was broken (my country), and you then attacked me, I'd tell you to do one where that money was concerned. Quite why I would continue to give money to people that loathe me to the point where they are burning my national flag is beyond me.
Whilst some parts of this planet excel, create, work, innovate, challenge, think and ponder; others....don't. They are trapped believing in fairies, magic, miracles, and an afterlife. It colours their thinking, their mood, their day, their actions, their everything. The human race, if it wishes to progress, needs to cut the shit. We need to get everyone on board. There needs to be an enlightenment. We are seemingly still in the dark ages.
I don't give a fuck about Mohamed. I don't believe in him, I don't believe he can't be offended either. Offence is not given, its taken. What offends me may not offend you, but that's fine. Live and let get-on-with. If I am offended by something, I can turn the other way, I can not pay any attention to it. Salman Rushdie was put into hiding, Kurt Westergaard was attacked with an axe, Jyllands Posten was burnt to death for publishing the cartoons Westergaard drew. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam. And now this. Now Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador in Libya.
All for religion. All for a fictitious character. Would you murder someone in the name of Snow White? Its a daft idea. This old thinking needs to die, not innocent people. If you were to walk down a street with a placard claiming that 'Jesus Was A Homo', you might get some derogatory looks, maybe some harsh words, but you'd live to walk another day. If you replaced Jesus with Mohamed, you would be in serious trouble. Serious trouble.
I feel edgy for claiming I don't give a fuck about this Mohamed character. Why should I feel that way? How much longer can this go on for? Imagine the rioting was about a book called.....oh I don't know...50 Shades Of Grey. The book would be banned, it would be out of print, it would be considered a danger. Because the Koran is religious, it cannot be banned. But it should be. So much violence in its name, so much grief and anger.
I feel like a teacher saying to the pupils 'If you can't play with it properly you can't have it'. But this is how it is with that damn book. We need to move on from religion, from idiocy, and from primitive violence and anger in the name of imaginary friends.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Save The World, Get The Message
As a confused teenager, many lyrics pertaining to the changing of the world are soaked up with relish. You know the world is fucked, you know it needs to change, and you know the lyrics of whichever politically-charged band you're listening to have the answers.
Then, you grow up a bit. You realise that, in fact, if you want to change the world, you need to first of all start with yourself (cheers, Ghandi), then you need to play them at your own game. If the world of politics is corrupt in your eyes, then you need to infiltrate their little party and make the change from within. To me, shouting lyrics about change at a bunch of punks who already want change is getting you nowhere. Its what the phrase 'Preaching to the converted' was made for.
Recently, a band called The King Blues decided they would be political. Sure there were love songs in there, but they genuinely didn't like the way things were and decided to sing about it. They had a decent enough back story; that of squats, petty crime, drinking paint stripper, listening to Crass etc. So far, so everyday. Then they decide to busk with a few ukuleles, play some parties and before you know it, they're on Household Name Records and playing the Lock Up stage at Reading. So far, so pretty damn lucky.
With their second album, Save The World, Get The Girl, the band had a 'hit' with the title track. From here, it all went a little down hill.
Many of the original members of the band found themselves sacked after the tour, and one in particular claimed it was over money. It seemed that some were getting more than others, and everyone was desperate to have their songs on the album as it generated song-writing royalties, something which - for a musician - is tantamount to their retirement fund.
Despite only two original members remaining, the band soldiered on for another album and then quit before the release of their fourth and final effort. There was a lot of noise about who to blame, how the band stuck to their beliefs and ideals etc, and how much the fans meant. The usual shizzle.
However, for a band that was so hot on taking down corruption, of fighting the powers that be, and of being the best person you can be, there was a number of dubious moves on their part. Signing with Island Records made them label mates with U2, albeit very briefly. We could label this 'Doing a RATM' then, as those other government botherers, Rage Against The Machine, claimed they wanted to bring down that pesky 'system' whilst signing for Epic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. which made them label mates with Michael Jackson.
Although Island Records is a Jamaican record label and famously had Bob Marley on their books, it nevertheless is part of a huge corporation, and therefore the polar opposite of everything The King Blues advocated. Nevertheless, they may well play the 'We're getting our message to a wider audience' card. Thank you RATM for that little doozy.
It seems though that regardless of their choice of label, The King Blues were ultimately undone by greed. At least, according to their old guitar player, Fruitbag. In a statement issued after his sacking from the band, he claimed - surprise surprise - that everything changed after they signed to Universal, the company that owns Island Records. The greed and the egos showed their heads, and the band began to crack.
Interesting then, that the very people that hated that kind of stuff and raged against it were in fact as susceptible to it as the very people they were complaining about in their lyrics. That one event, the signing to a big-money label and the potential royalties that came with it, was enough to change everything. Itch's response to the accusations thrown by Fruitbag never once addressed the greed issue, only the personal issues stated by Fruitbag. Perhaps it was because there was no defence for it?
Although The King Blues are now no more, to me they are indicative of the fact that everyone has their price, everyone is prepared to lose or forget that which they were so sure of initially. Moaning on about the government and how they treat people terribly is one thing, but to then do the same to the majority of your bandmates who are supposedly in the struggle with you together is hypocrisy itself.
The King Blues did walk it like they talked it, lets not forget that. They did do things for the causes they believed in, they did try and raise awareness over certain issues, these things are commendable. Sadly though they were changed by pound signs, just like anyone else.
The Clash, Chumbawamba, The Sex Pistols, Levellers. Many bands have started out with rage, with desire to make changes, only to end up getting on their knees in front of the corporate cock. There is nothing wrong with this, if you're honest about it. You want to make a bit of money? Why not? Why wouldn't you? There's no shame in it, but there is shame in being dishonest about it.
Then, you grow up a bit. You realise that, in fact, if you want to change the world, you need to first of all start with yourself (cheers, Ghandi), then you need to play them at your own game. If the world of politics is corrupt in your eyes, then you need to infiltrate their little party and make the change from within. To me, shouting lyrics about change at a bunch of punks who already want change is getting you nowhere. Its what the phrase 'Preaching to the converted' was made for.
Recently, a band called The King Blues decided they would be political. Sure there were love songs in there, but they genuinely didn't like the way things were and decided to sing about it. They had a decent enough back story; that of squats, petty crime, drinking paint stripper, listening to Crass etc. So far, so everyday. Then they decide to busk with a few ukuleles, play some parties and before you know it, they're on Household Name Records and playing the Lock Up stage at Reading. So far, so pretty damn lucky.
With their second album, Save The World, Get The Girl, the band had a 'hit' with the title track. From here, it all went a little down hill.
Many of the original members of the band found themselves sacked after the tour, and one in particular claimed it was over money. It seemed that some were getting more than others, and everyone was desperate to have their songs on the album as it generated song-writing royalties, something which - for a musician - is tantamount to their retirement fund.
Despite only two original members remaining, the band soldiered on for another album and then quit before the release of their fourth and final effort. There was a lot of noise about who to blame, how the band stuck to their beliefs and ideals etc, and how much the fans meant. The usual shizzle.
However, for a band that was so hot on taking down corruption, of fighting the powers that be, and of being the best person you can be, there was a number of dubious moves on their part. Signing with Island Records made them label mates with U2, albeit very briefly. We could label this 'Doing a RATM' then, as those other government botherers, Rage Against The Machine, claimed they wanted to bring down that pesky 'system' whilst signing for Epic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. which made them label mates with Michael Jackson.
Although Island Records is a Jamaican record label and famously had Bob Marley on their books, it nevertheless is part of a huge corporation, and therefore the polar opposite of everything The King Blues advocated. Nevertheless, they may well play the 'We're getting our message to a wider audience' card. Thank you RATM for that little doozy.
It seems though that regardless of their choice of label, The King Blues were ultimately undone by greed. At least, according to their old guitar player, Fruitbag. In a statement issued after his sacking from the band, he claimed - surprise surprise - that everything changed after they signed to Universal, the company that owns Island Records. The greed and the egos showed their heads, and the band began to crack.
Interesting then, that the very people that hated that kind of stuff and raged against it were in fact as susceptible to it as the very people they were complaining about in their lyrics. That one event, the signing to a big-money label and the potential royalties that came with it, was enough to change everything. Itch's response to the accusations thrown by Fruitbag never once addressed the greed issue, only the personal issues stated by Fruitbag. Perhaps it was because there was no defence for it?
Although The King Blues are now no more, to me they are indicative of the fact that everyone has their price, everyone is prepared to lose or forget that which they were so sure of initially. Moaning on about the government and how they treat people terribly is one thing, but to then do the same to the majority of your bandmates who are supposedly in the struggle with you together is hypocrisy itself.
The King Blues did walk it like they talked it, lets not forget that. They did do things for the causes they believed in, they did try and raise awareness over certain issues, these things are commendable. Sadly though they were changed by pound signs, just like anyone else.
The Clash, Chumbawamba, The Sex Pistols, Levellers. Many bands have started out with rage, with desire to make changes, only to end up getting on their knees in front of the corporate cock. There is nothing wrong with this, if you're honest about it. You want to make a bit of money? Why not? Why wouldn't you? There's no shame in it, but there is shame in being dishonest about it.
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Fame? Or Fortune?
Since 2009, I have lived as a semi-professional musician. Quite how my life would have turned out if I did not have that - albeit relatively small - income would be anyone's guess. Local gigs have helped fuel my car and put groceries in the cupboard, and bigger, European or worldwide gigs have helped buy the car, tax it, pay rent, pay child maintenance, buy clothes, and allow me to....yes, go to the pub.
A long time ago I decided it would be much more interesting to be rich rather than famous. It seems this thinking is in stark contrast to many of the X-Factor / Big Brother addicted kidz growing up now. Fame seems to be a pain, whereas having some nice folding money on your hip brings with it a feeling of security and mild happiness.
With this in mind, I never really like taking compliments from people concerning the bands, and certainly don't see why people would ask me to sign their CD's at Frenzy gigs. Its a scribble and, if anything, devalues the CD rather than increases its monetary worth. Regardless, if I declined a signature, I would definitely be considered a rock star.
So I am aware that in the future I will look back at this time in my existence fondly, and accept that I was very fortunate to have lived this way for as long as I have. Some weeks are a famine, others a feast. Right now, its famine time, but that will swing back the other way soon enough.
A friend of mine though, has recently been experiencing a degree of success with his band. They have acquired a manager, a bloody good thing to have, and luckily for them this chap knows his onions. He has gotten them all manner of good things, and there's plenty more to come. They have magazine coverage, they are doing a Radio One session, they are playing the festivals with their more influential, more successful peers. So far, so rock star.
However....they're all skint. They're all on the dole, most of them because they believe they're already rock stars and shouldn't have to work. It seems rock stars these days need their mum and dad to wash, iron, cook and clean for them though. Claiming benefits is one thing, but it seems that despite their festival slots and excellent supporting opportunities, the money isn't forthcoming. Would it be alarmist to say its a form of exploitation? As a jaded musician I'd say no. If someone does a job for you, you pay them for their services. Unfortunately, contracts are rarely exchanged in the music industry, unless they heavily benefit one party and financially penalise the other.
I would like some of their opportunities, really I would. But whilst opportunity brings with it experience, it seldom pays the bills. I appreciate this is where age may creep into the proceedings, as I now believe that whilst it is important to see and do as much as you can with this very short life, I also think that for the young, the experience is a large part of it, and not the financial reward. However, this comes from a lack of responsibility. These guys don't have to make rent, pay for the electric, and pay the council tax.
I hope they eventually invest enough free gigs in the band so that later on, they won't have to worry about where the money is coming from. Myself; I would much rather be in a small band that gets paid well regularly, than have the luxury of bragging to my friends about the green room at Radio One. I too get a lot of great experiences, but I come back in the black. And long may that continue...
A long time ago I decided it would be much more interesting to be rich rather than famous. It seems this thinking is in stark contrast to many of the X-Factor / Big Brother addicted kidz growing up now. Fame seems to be a pain, whereas having some nice folding money on your hip brings with it a feeling of security and mild happiness.
With this in mind, I never really like taking compliments from people concerning the bands, and certainly don't see why people would ask me to sign their CD's at Frenzy gigs. Its a scribble and, if anything, devalues the CD rather than increases its monetary worth. Regardless, if I declined a signature, I would definitely be considered a rock star.
So I am aware that in the future I will look back at this time in my existence fondly, and accept that I was very fortunate to have lived this way for as long as I have. Some weeks are a famine, others a feast. Right now, its famine time, but that will swing back the other way soon enough.
A friend of mine though, has recently been experiencing a degree of success with his band. They have acquired a manager, a bloody good thing to have, and luckily for them this chap knows his onions. He has gotten them all manner of good things, and there's plenty more to come. They have magazine coverage, they are doing a Radio One session, they are playing the festivals with their more influential, more successful peers. So far, so rock star.
However....they're all skint. They're all on the dole, most of them because they believe they're already rock stars and shouldn't have to work. It seems rock stars these days need their mum and dad to wash, iron, cook and clean for them though. Claiming benefits is one thing, but it seems that despite their festival slots and excellent supporting opportunities, the money isn't forthcoming. Would it be alarmist to say its a form of exploitation? As a jaded musician I'd say no. If someone does a job for you, you pay them for their services. Unfortunately, contracts are rarely exchanged in the music industry, unless they heavily benefit one party and financially penalise the other.
I would like some of their opportunities, really I would. But whilst opportunity brings with it experience, it seldom pays the bills. I appreciate this is where age may creep into the proceedings, as I now believe that whilst it is important to see and do as much as you can with this very short life, I also think that for the young, the experience is a large part of it, and not the financial reward. However, this comes from a lack of responsibility. These guys don't have to make rent, pay for the electric, and pay the council tax.
I hope they eventually invest enough free gigs in the band so that later on, they won't have to worry about where the money is coming from. Myself; I would much rather be in a small band that gets paid well regularly, than have the luxury of bragging to my friends about the green room at Radio One. I too get a lot of great experiences, but I come back in the black. And long may that continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)