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.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
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...
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
The Coil
No, not a contraceptive. Rather, a contraption. The Tesla Coil, to be precise.
For those that don't know, the Tesla Coil is a way of making more power out of a current. Nikola Tesla was a genius. For me, one of the greatest to have ever lived. Certainly better than that Edison chancer, who actually had Tesla working for him, promised him a bonus of 30,000 dollars if Tesla came up with a certain number of patents (this was back when 30,000 would have set you up for hundreds of years), which Tesla did, only to then say "I was only joking, chump".
So Tesla left, but took his genius with him. Edison and Tesla engaged in a kind of inventing war for a while, and Tesla often won. An example of which was AC. Alternating Current. Edison invented and championed Direct Current, but DC meant sending electrons out and then bringing them back. It was a very bad way of sending electric to people. In New York at the time, the multitude of wires needed to carry electricity sometimes blacked out the sky. It must have been something.
DC meant having to erect power stations every couple of miles, just to keep the electron flow going. So Tesla invented AC. Alternating current. It meant the power cables were much thinner, and could just keep on going with no need for a boost every few miles. Needless to say, Edison was incredulous, and slagged AC off at every opportunity.
But Tesla wanted to go further than AC. Further than fewer, thinner wires. He wanted no wires at all. In fact, he wanted free power. To all. And, with the Tesla Coil, he deemed it possible. If you plug a Tesla Coil in to an American socket, you're giving it 120 Volts. But the coil spews electricity from the top of the coil at 500,000 volts. How? Well, if you imagine the electricity flowing like water, the voltage is likened to water pressure. If you attach a nozzle to the end of a hose, the water pressure is increased, while the flow of water is decreased. Try putting your thumb over the end of a hose and you'll see. So the coil steps up the voltage and reduces the current. Its a transformer.
If you hold a light bulb in a room with a Tesla Coil in it, the light bulb will illuminate. No wires. No sockets. Just electrical energy in the air. Tesla wanted to build giant Tesla Coils and provide the earth with electrical energy, using the earth itself as a conductor.
This would mean impoverished countries that still live off the land would all of a sudden have access to power. And not just any power, clean power. The global warming merchants needn't worry about coal fuel stations, we'd only be powering a few energy stations. Tesla built a huge coil, Wardenclyffe, and managed to illuminate light bulbs over a mile away. Sadly, and is so oft the case, the money man pulled out of investing in Tesla's invention, when someone beat him broadcasting radio waves over the Atlantic. Later, the accolade was reversed and granted to Tesla, after it materialised that the chap who beat him to it used at least 5 or 6 of Tesla's patents.
Regardless, I see Tesla's ideas for free world power as...obviously a threat to establishment....but more than that, even back then he was thinking big. Really big. If we are one world and we all look out for each other, I don't think the regular 5 pound a month pledge to Oxfam can really cut it. Oh it helps, sure, but we, as a species, need to think bigger. Tesla style bigger.
He also invented the induction motor, which is the standard electric motor used everywhere these days. A larger type is used in a car, also called a Tesla, which is an electric car that can do over 200 miles on a single charge. Now, Steve, you might say. What was that? Why, if we can build electric cars that can do 0 - 60 in under 4 seconds and travel over 200 miles on a single charge, are the governments of the world not making this standard issue? Why are we still bothering with the internal combustion engine?
Short answer: fuck knows. The technology is there. It exists. It can be used and utilised. But everyone seems to be looking the other way, to the point where shares in the Tesla motor company dropped last year and continue to decline.
If the men in power cared about the environment like your green taxes claim they do, then we would all be driving these cars. By law. But that would punch a huge hole in their revenue, and we can't have that. The Saudis have so much invested in the American economy that if the Saudis were ruined because we didn't need their oil any more, the American economy would collapse.
Free power, clean transport. Isn't this what we should be pursuing?
Nikola Tesla invented many other things; remote control, energy saving light bulbs (seriously), X-rays (again, seriously but he was never recognised for it), proposed the idea of bouncing radio waves off objects to determine position and speed 17 years before the invention of radar, and the laser.
He also built something called The Earthquake Machine. Going on the principle that every object, once struck, has a resonant frequency, he concluded that if you match that frequency and increase it, any material can be shaken to pieces. Dangerous, but true nevertheless. You could bring down a building with a very small device.
Tesla then. Had his fair share of good ideas and dangerous ones. Died alone in a hotel room in New York, undiscovered for two days. The FBI seized his files, and the world largely forgot about him. These days, we need his genius more than ever before. Sadly, the Tesla Coil is not taken seriously. Think of all the money the power suppliers would lose. The electric car is not being taken seriously. Think of all the money the oil companies would lose. Of course, if the world built giant Tesla Coils, the electric cars would pick up the power as they drove. They wouldn't need a charge. You could just keep on driving as long as your tyres went round and the motor was okay. Wouldn't that be something?
For those that don't know, the Tesla Coil is a way of making more power out of a current. Nikola Tesla was a genius. For me, one of the greatest to have ever lived. Certainly better than that Edison chancer, who actually had Tesla working for him, promised him a bonus of 30,000 dollars if Tesla came up with a certain number of patents (this was back when 30,000 would have set you up for hundreds of years), which Tesla did, only to then say "I was only joking, chump".
So Tesla left, but took his genius with him. Edison and Tesla engaged in a kind of inventing war for a while, and Tesla often won. An example of which was AC. Alternating Current. Edison invented and championed Direct Current, but DC meant sending electrons out and then bringing them back. It was a very bad way of sending electric to people. In New York at the time, the multitude of wires needed to carry electricity sometimes blacked out the sky. It must have been something.
DC meant having to erect power stations every couple of miles, just to keep the electron flow going. So Tesla invented AC. Alternating current. It meant the power cables were much thinner, and could just keep on going with no need for a boost every few miles. Needless to say, Edison was incredulous, and slagged AC off at every opportunity.
But Tesla wanted to go further than AC. Further than fewer, thinner wires. He wanted no wires at all. In fact, he wanted free power. To all. And, with the Tesla Coil, he deemed it possible. If you plug a Tesla Coil in to an American socket, you're giving it 120 Volts. But the coil spews electricity from the top of the coil at 500,000 volts. How? Well, if you imagine the electricity flowing like water, the voltage is likened to water pressure. If you attach a nozzle to the end of a hose, the water pressure is increased, while the flow of water is decreased. Try putting your thumb over the end of a hose and you'll see. So the coil steps up the voltage and reduces the current. Its a transformer.
If you hold a light bulb in a room with a Tesla Coil in it, the light bulb will illuminate. No wires. No sockets. Just electrical energy in the air. Tesla wanted to build giant Tesla Coils and provide the earth with electrical energy, using the earth itself as a conductor.
This would mean impoverished countries that still live off the land would all of a sudden have access to power. And not just any power, clean power. The global warming merchants needn't worry about coal fuel stations, we'd only be powering a few energy stations. Tesla built a huge coil, Wardenclyffe, and managed to illuminate light bulbs over a mile away. Sadly, and is so oft the case, the money man pulled out of investing in Tesla's invention, when someone beat him broadcasting radio waves over the Atlantic. Later, the accolade was reversed and granted to Tesla, after it materialised that the chap who beat him to it used at least 5 or 6 of Tesla's patents.
Regardless, I see Tesla's ideas for free world power as...obviously a threat to establishment....but more than that, even back then he was thinking big. Really big. If we are one world and we all look out for each other, I don't think the regular 5 pound a month pledge to Oxfam can really cut it. Oh it helps, sure, but we, as a species, need to think bigger. Tesla style bigger.
He also invented the induction motor, which is the standard electric motor used everywhere these days. A larger type is used in a car, also called a Tesla, which is an electric car that can do over 200 miles on a single charge. Now, Steve, you might say. What was that? Why, if we can build electric cars that can do 0 - 60 in under 4 seconds and travel over 200 miles on a single charge, are the governments of the world not making this standard issue? Why are we still bothering with the internal combustion engine?
Short answer: fuck knows. The technology is there. It exists. It can be used and utilised. But everyone seems to be looking the other way, to the point where shares in the Tesla motor company dropped last year and continue to decline.
If the men in power cared about the environment like your green taxes claim they do, then we would all be driving these cars. By law. But that would punch a huge hole in their revenue, and we can't have that. The Saudis have so much invested in the American economy that if the Saudis were ruined because we didn't need their oil any more, the American economy would collapse.
Free power, clean transport. Isn't this what we should be pursuing?
Nikola Tesla invented many other things; remote control, energy saving light bulbs (seriously), X-rays (again, seriously but he was never recognised for it), proposed the idea of bouncing radio waves off objects to determine position and speed 17 years before the invention of radar, and the laser.
He also built something called The Earthquake Machine. Going on the principle that every object, once struck, has a resonant frequency, he concluded that if you match that frequency and increase it, any material can be shaken to pieces. Dangerous, but true nevertheless. You could bring down a building with a very small device.
Tesla then. Had his fair share of good ideas and dangerous ones. Died alone in a hotel room in New York, undiscovered for two days. The FBI seized his files, and the world largely forgot about him. These days, we need his genius more than ever before. Sadly, the Tesla Coil is not taken seriously. Think of all the money the power suppliers would lose. The electric car is not being taken seriously. Think of all the money the oil companies would lose. Of course, if the world built giant Tesla Coils, the electric cars would pick up the power as they drove. They wouldn't need a charge. You could just keep on driving as long as your tyres went round and the motor was okay. Wouldn't that be something?
Friday, 17 August 2012
Pie Anna & The Snob
Music is one of the few global processes we know of in the brain. Hooray for music then. Now, music has done much to me and for me. My ears are damaged, though only time will tell to what degree and how it'll all end up and whether I consider it a fair trade-off. Music has also shaped me though, and made me much of the person I am today as well as allowing me the opportunity to travel to many places I most certainly would not have done and play to people that would otherwise have ignored me.
Apparently, when you reach a certain age you begin to lose somewhere in the region of 50,000 neurons a day. It means that starting something, learning something new, is more difficult than if you tried it when you were a kid and your brain was a sponge soaking it all up. I was daft enough to start learning the piano a year ago. 35, and taking on something as monstrous as the piano. A year later, I am pleased with my progress, though I never imagined for one minute it would be as difficult as it is, with or without losing my brain cells.
I think that everyone should be made to take piano lessons. Here's why; it teaches you to take things one step at a time, it teaches you co-ordination, and it teaches you expression. Three bloody good reasons. Not least the first one. In piano, learning a piece, you do it bar-by-bar. You learn a bar, you move on. Then you piece them together. It gets programmed into your fingers, your motor cortex, and you know it. And its a good lesson to take with you. Do things one step at a time and its easier. Go rushing in and you'll fuck up.
Now, the piano is something I've kept relatively secret. I play for me, to me, its me me me. I get a huge amount of pleasure from it, especially when it just works or you pull off something fiendishly difficult that has been plaguing you for months. Why then, would I not want to shout about this, record me playing pieces and stick them on Youtube? Because I play classically. I play Bach, Chopin, Debussy and Schumann.
Sadly for these splendid fellows, many people view classical music as the domain of the upper class, of the snobs and the stuck-ups. The upper classes have done nothing to dispel the myth that classical music is for the rich or the especially intelligent. The morons. Beauty is for anyone fortunate enough to turn their senses to it. Many are afraid of introspection for fear of what lies within, and I think certain pieces of classical music are so affecting, looking in is the only thing you can do. If you don't like what you see there, see a therapist, but don't blame the music.
Why you would not want to listen to music of such beauty and power with all the sonic garbage that clogs up the charts is quite beyond me. Sure, you can't put up with it all the time, you need a beat, you need some noise, some anger and some fun. But when you want to be moved, and I mean really, really moved, where every fucking emotion you can imagine is moulded over a couple of staves and spread out over 6 or 8 minutes, I don't see how you can go anywhere but to a piano.
Chopin's Raindrop Prelude. So called because the one note (A flat) that plays throughout it is supposed to symbolise the pitter and the patter of raindrops. Plus the middle section could almost be a storm, a storm that later recedes and is replaced again by a light rain.
Aww. Nice. But come on. Such an adolescent interpretation. For me, the Raindrop Prelude demands to tell you that it soundtracks your life. It begins very delicately, then the initial theme is expanded upon, then it gets darker. And as we grow, we learn the important things; that people don't always get what they deserve, that we are often exploited, that we lose things and people we love, and we get very, very pissed off about it. This, to me, is the middle part of the Raindrop. The anger you contain throughout a lot of your days. Then, at the end with the refrain, so it goes with us. We return to a state similar to the one when we got here. We realise the little things don't matter a fuck, we realise life is a thing of beauty, even with the tragedies, and as the song closes, we too find peace. The one note that plays throughout, to me is a heartbeat. Not rain. Rain is a daft idea.
Aww. Nice. But come on. Such an adolescent interpretation. For me, the Raindrop Prelude demands to tell you that it soundtracks your life. It begins very delicately, then the initial theme is expanded upon, then it gets darker. And as we grow, we learn the important things; that people don't always get what they deserve, that we are often exploited, that we lose things and people we love, and we get very, very pissed off about it. This, to me, is the middle part of the Raindrop. The anger you contain throughout a lot of your days. Then, at the end with the refrain, so it goes with us. We return to a state similar to the one when we got here. We realise the little things don't matter a fuck, we realise life is a thing of beauty, even with the tragedies, and as the song closes, we too find peace. The one note that plays throughout, to me is a heartbeat. Not rain. Rain is a daft idea.
Would I be afraid of saying the above to some bow-tie wearing knob shank of a classical music critic? Damn right. But why would my interpretation of that piece be wrong? It is what it is. He doesn't agree so what. I'll take it to the grave, to my last chord, because its what the piece says to me. Therefore, it can never be wrong.
Imposing limitations on your musical tastes is a daft idea. I remember when I was at school you could only like Def Leppard. Anyone else and you were out cast. Whilst it now seems okay for anyone to like anything, still classical music is the elephant in the room. I wish more would embrace it. I know it seems dense, I know it seems overwhelming, but by jingo its worth it.
The people who wrote this stuff weren't snobs either. Many of them lived awful lives, lives of poverty, lives of heart-break, lives of ill health. Chopin died at the age of 39 of Cystic Fibrosis, heart-broken that his great love was not there as she promised she would be. Beethoven died at 56 from unknown causes, he was a raging alcoholic, had chronic diarrhoea, and was profoundly deaf in his later years, the worst thing you could wish upon a composer of music. He was also twice nearly beaten to death by his alcoholic father when he was a child. Bach had 10 children die in infancy, as well as experiencing the death of his mother and father before he was 10, and the death of the love of his life. Who else can be more qualified at expressing tragedy. Yet this music is for everyone, they created this stuff that was so beautiful, and the upper classes got hold of it and made it feel exclusive to them. Fuck that, take it back off them. Its out there to enjoy, to plough through, to soundtrack your life. If needs be, start with one of those arbitrary 'Best Piano Album In The Universe (though we have no proof of that) Volume 3 (How can they do Volumes of something that they proclaim to be the best in the universe?). Whatever you start with, just try it. Dip your toe in the water, see how it feels, or else you too will be a snob, only an inverted one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)