Tuesday 26 May 2009

Choice opinion


A recent study by royalties body PRS has found that the increased distribution of music by file sharing sites has only helped to make the most popular acts more popular!

'File-sharing only makes big acts bigger, study shows'
'Pirated pop keeps stars popular'

This wasn't how it was supposed to be was it?! This was supposed to be the revolution that all music lovers had been waiting for. It most certainly wasn't intended to make Coldplay more popular than...oh I don't know, oxygen?!

Sites like 'MySpace' allowed such acts as Lilly Allen and the Arctic Monkeys to amass large fan bases with no more resource than a single laptop and good old fashioned word of mouth.

"Hurrah" we cried as we well and truly stuck one to the record labels. The same labels of course, who would immediately snap up these acts, now assured of their potential for shifting units.

Despite this cynicism though and the fact 'Napster' may have been closed down along with the dubious 'Pirate Bay' more recently, these relatively new developments have at least forced the record companies to find alternate ways of distributing music. This has indirectly given rise to excellent sites such as 'Last FM' and 'Spotify' where streamed music can be heard for free!

The Libertines were perhaps the first to harness the web in this way, giving access to unreleased tracks via the Internet for free and encouraging the distribution of demos and bootlegs with veritable glee.

It was Radiohead though who took this one step further, allowing fans to pay as much or as little as they liked for album 'In Rainbows', thus bypassing a record company altogether and hosting the music files for download on an independent website.

There are problems with this kind of 'giveaway' however. Radiohead were in the fortunate position of being an established act, having written some of the most heralded albums of our age and can more than afford to make such artistic statements.

Up and coming artists, struggling hard to establish themselves above the general dirge of this or that scene, don't have the luxury of releasing music for free. They need all the money they can get, often, no doubt, working numerous jobs to make ends meet and keep the bandwagon rolling.

There's a comparable situation in the world of scholarly publishing as it happens; one I'm party to in my work on technical journals. Academics and researchers in Universities and at Learned Institutions worldwide are championing 'open access' publishing whereby their research papers are made accessible freely to the scientific community rather than through the subscription seeking journal titles as was the past norm.

Academics argue, understandably, that scientific research shouldn't be restricted by these models, that making it freely accessible encourages discussion, visibility and further research.

Fair enough, you may think, an admirable cause. Consider however, the smaller, independent publishers (such as my employer the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology) not blessed with the funding of these higher education institutions. How can they maintain their business whilst supplying access to journal titles for free?

One of the more favoured models for open access is to charge the author for publishing their material, thus subsidising the free access to the paper. Again this may seem reasonable, but what of authors in developing countries, who may not be able to afford publishing costs enforced by developed world publishing groups, or the independent researcher not supported by an academic faculty and forced to fund themselves?

Would we want to exclude this type of author and restrict the amount of 'grey' literature produced in niche areas of study? Yes, we may have free access to the 'stars' of academia but we dilute diversity and restrict opportunity. Amongst other things, the most popular authors, will inevitably get more popular.

Is this what's happening in the music world? With music files shared freely and streaming services available widely, we now have access to more and more music than ever before, diversity therefore isn't being compromised. This new world certainly allows the 'grey' music on the fringes of our public conscience to find a place but clearly this isn't making much of a difference to its sales?

In the current climate, we no longer rely on traditional barometers such as 'Top of the Pops' or even a guru figure like John Peel. As a consequence there's no longer a filter in place to sort the wheat from the chaff. We have to suffer more and more utter pap in the process. I wonder, as a result, whether this actually affords us too much choice. The majority overloaded, simply opt out, preferring to stick with old stalwarts.

In 'All is Vanity, from the recently released Manic Street Preachers album 'Journal for Plague Lovers', James Dean Bradfield sings, "I would prefer no choice. One bread, one milk, one food." Nicky Wire speaking in a recent NME interview explains...

"And I mean, that still resonates with us so deeply today. The idea that there's just so much choice now, that when we apply that to music, people think it's great that there's so much music, and that's so obviously not the case because so much of it is utter drivel. And you know, too much choice in music has led to mediocrity. And I think it's that kind of idea that Richey [lyricist] liked experts. He liked people who he thought were thoroughly researched and immersed in each particular subject. And we're still like that now."

So there you have it. Whether we like it or not, we need the institutionalised means of accessing our music, our research literature, our politics even. Yes, there's a balance to strike, but ironically and subconsciously, we'd all like to be told what we think. If we didn't, opinion columnists, reviewers and art critics would be out of a job and where would that leave us?

Quite possibly we'd have to suffer endless repeats of U2 'staples' festering across the air waves, all because we wouldn't know where to start nor finish; we'd all accept defeat; worse still, we'd accept the general perception that U2 are indeed 'the greatest ever band'. Let us hope we never see the day.

Wednesday 20 May 2009

Album Review: Dark Days/Light Years - Super Furry Animals


****
The ninth album from the Welsh wizards is another joyous romp through the genres. Dark Days/Light Years is influenced by the sounds of psychedelia, glam rock, folk and Krautrock, the result of which is an intriguing hotch potch of whimsical new ditties.

SFA remain appealing as a result of their relentlessly innovation. Side projects abound and yet despite the incredible quantity of output, new material always sounds fresh and invigorating.

'Inaugural Trams' for instance. Who but the Furries would think to write a lyric based on an inner city transport system, put to a pseudo Kraftwerk beat and including a rap, in German no less, performed by a member of Franz Ferdinand? Just over 5 mins later you realise you don't really care, it's just possibly the most enjoyable piece of music you've heard this year.

'Moped Eyes' sounds like Bowie - inspired! 'Mt' is a woozy daydream so laid back it almost falls over and 'Helium Hearts' is pure pop paradise.

Personally, I miss the more liberal splashing of melody that accompanied previous album 'Hey Venus!' Nothing quite matches the beautifully melodic 'Run-away' from that album and in truth sometimes there is a little lack of impetus on some of these slow burning 'jams'. The sequencing alone breeds quite a different beast from its predecessor plus there are five tracks here well over the 5 minute mark.

On repeated listen though, more and more reveals itself. Enjoy the lyrical delights of 'I will design a town in the image of your face' or 'They say the future of cement is set in stone' both from 'Inaugural Trams'. Still the humour shines through as on past SFA records.

As a friend of mine so eloquently posted on twitter, "[Dark Days/Light Years is] a ninth consecutive return to form."

Tuesday 19 May 2009

Film Review - Star Trek


****
I've never been a great fan of the original 1960's series.

Although always aware of its merits, the 'Next Generation' was more suitable for my...erm...generation.

I enjoyed some of the original movies when they were shown on television too, usually around Christmas time, but again it was 'Star Trek - Generations' that I remember vividly ('Generations, Generations, Generations' - Sounds like the potential title of a Channel 4 rival to 'Who Do You Think You Are?')

As a result, I hadn't been waiting expectantly for this latest re-imagining of an old staple. Generally speaking, I'm annoyed by Hollywood's lazy penchant for remakes. I have to admit though, that watching 'Star Trek' sans 'Generation' was the most I had enjoyed a genuine blockbuster for quite some time.

Unusually for a time-travel plot device, this backsliding is carried out without feeling particularly clunky. When a 'Romulan' vessel appears from the future and causes a chain reaction of events that affect both Kirk and Spock's original life stories, it cleverly creates an alternate reality in which the 'new adventures' can be taken in any path the creators desire. Very cunning (although reading that last paragraph back, I can see why people 'go off' trekkies.)

The key to the films success though, is that it manages to keep intact the mix of action, sci-fi and genuine warmth inherent in all previous Star Trek's. The actors, playing such familiar roles as they are, manage to suggest the mannerisms of Shatner, Nimoy et al without ever crossing the line into pastiche. With the possible exception of Simon Pegg, whose Scotty is quite frankly laughable (and not in a good way), you immediately establish a familiarity with this new cast, yet there's a freshness too that suggests potential for the franchise in its new guise.

The use of CGI, something that can often leave films feeling lifeless when overblown, is effective, not only in immersing you in this alternative world, but actually increasing the suspense and drama of the action. Witness the reaction of the 'red matter' in one particularly tension filled scene or the escape of the 'Enterprise' from a black hole. Crucially the CGI isn't used for its own sake but to add to the dynamism of the plot.

It's impossible to watch, discuss or review this film without comparing it to 'Star Wars' so I shall just go ahead and meet the 'elephant in the room' head on. There are in fact a number of subtle nods to Lucas' meisterwork, such as an early 'Cantina' scene, Kirk being stranded on an ice world somewhat reminiscent of 'Hoth' and in Scotty's alien companion, who can't help but call to mind an 'Ewok'.

Yet, it almost feels as though director J.J. Abrams is trying to tip a wink to Lucas, whose Star Wars prequels were so lacking in charm and warmth. It's as if to say, "This is how it's done George."

It's true, 'Star Trek' does manage to convey what is again essentially a back story with far greater success than Lucas ever managed, engaging a new audience without betraying the childhood memories of the old. Perhaps that is Abrams greatest triumph.

Thursday 14 May 2009

An eye opener

I've let myself down. I always prided myself on my sportsmanship and general fair play but you would never have believed it last night at five-a-side football.

Frustrated by my performance, a couple of 'iffy' refereeing decisions and what I perceived as an organised vendetta against me by the opposition, I simply cracked.

Not at the opposition of course nor even the ref but at my own team, my own flesh and blood, those I hold most dear. Poor John, he didn't deserve to be called a 'See you next Tuesday' but that's what I quite audibly called him, outraged by his criticism of my loss of possession. He apologised, I apologised and we went on to lose by a solitary goal but that wasn't the end of the matter in my mind.

Driving home, I started to feel ashamed of my outburst and my subsequent stropping off without the customary end of game handshakes. Only days ago, I'd been vocal in my utter contempt for Drogba and Ballack in Chelsea's draw with Barcelona. Now, a week later, I could be quite rightly be called a hypocrite.

Worst still, having found out that my pregnant wife and I were going to be having a son, I started to consider how I'd have felt if he (assuming he was interested in playing football) had behaved as I did. I'd be so disappointed, angry even - Oh God what kind of role model am I?!

My fatherly responsibilities hit home like never before. Suddenly, I realised how I would need to consider my actions in all aspects of life with far more care than I was ever doing now. What if my 7 year old son had seen me act like that? Old enough to understand what he was seeing and more pointedly hearing - I'd be devastated.

Needless to say it was an eye-opener.

Tuesday 12 May 2009

When all is said and pun


“Of puns it has been said that those who most dislike them are those who are least able to utter them.” - Edgar Allen Poe
God bless the pun. There's something universally enjoyable about a play on words. Recently, I've been hearing my fair share as a result of a potential bee's nest we thought we had in the eaves of our roof at home.

In fact it wasn't a nest at all, and apparently the numerous bees we saw buzzing around were probably just part of a larger swarm located elsewhere. It hasn't stopped the punning though, oh no.

It's amazing how many bee related jokes have been passing my way from friends, work colleagues and even unknown followers on twitter! Make your own decisions on what those puns were.

To paraphrase the tag line for a well known 'red top' - we love them (puns that is). From newspaper headlines to idle tweets, people get an unmatched sense of achievement from twisting their tongues around a particularly erudite juxtaposition of words. Never can the smugness induced by a well delivered pun be equalled. I'm almost moved to say it's punderful. (C'mon. I was only going to resist for so long.)

The problem is, as Frank Skinner once wrote, punning is addictive and sometimes it can evolve into a mild form of tourettes. You just can't help yourself no matter how awful you know the pun will be. Baddiel and Skinner in their World Cup Podcasts took it one step further, talking in-depth about 'football tourettes' whereby certain players names mentioned in TV commentary led you instinctively to act.

My personal favourite was Frank's revelation that whenever the German striker Miroslav Klose's name was mentioned, he felt compelled, almost against his will, to move nearer the television. The genius of this being that it's not even a vocal wordplay but a physical one, no utterance required. It's not even particularly clever yet it makes me smile.

See therefore how dangerous the pun can become? It excuses the utterer and in many ways embraces unfunny. Sarcasm's apparently the lowest form of wit but perhaps it is in fact the humble pun.

Fine by me. The pun is the comic tool of the everyman - an entrance into the world of wit for those not blessed with it. As a result, I'm happy to harbour its evils for they are well worth suffering when greeted with an absolute corker. Long live the pun and all who pale in her.

Sunday 3 May 2009

Album Review: It's Blitz - Yeah Yeah Yeah's


***
I've been listening to this album for a while now, and although I appreciate it, I'm still not quite sure what all the fuss is about. 'Q' Magazine gave it the dreaded 5 stars (something of a rubber stamp for overrated tosh) yet other furnishers of music review have been similarly enamoured.

'Zero' is an infectious enough slice of glitter ball sparkle, calling all to "shake a ladder to the sun" and is a worthy first single. Other moments of pop wizardry include the lilting 'Hysteric' and the possessive 'Runaway' but is this really enough to induce such rave reviews?

Perhaps my lack of inspiration is the result of seeing another 'indie' band losing the guitars and opening up the trunk labelled "80's synthesisers for post millennial reinvention".

I am a fan of the new penchant for electronica, it feels in many ways like we've finally broken free of the Britpop shadow that's so imprisoned our critical outlook for the best part of a decade. Even the era of the NME coined 'New Rock Revolution' was in many ways just the inevitable reaction to Britpops overblown pomp and bombast.

I think, my issue with 'It's Blitz' is that, well....it actually all seems very safe. Where should the line between dance enthused pop sensibilities and MOR blandness be drawn I ask? The Noisettes, another band that I initially admired, have recently crossed that imaginary line, deciding to drop their interesting melting pot of punk and soul in favour of appealing to the 'masses'.

To paraphrase a politician, let me make it quite clear, I've got nothing against pop music. Some of my best friends like pop music. Undoubtedly however, something has been lost during this intensive conversion.

It's probably not the case for Karen O and Co., I just don't find I'm moved by the 'Mull of Kintyre' leanings found on 'Skeletons' or the sigh inducing blandness of 'Soft Shock'. They're...well, just not charming. That's what is so infuriating.

These songs somehow seem stripped of charisma, of quirk, of warmth. 'Dull Life' and 'Dragon Queen' hit all the right notes but still leave me shrugging my shoulders - there can't be anything worse than that. To despise an album completely is at least evidence of a reaction. Here, I just feel lukewarm and that's unforgivable.