Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Music - response to Emily White and David Lowery

http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/06/16/154863819/i-never-owned-any-music-to-begin-with
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
As I see it there are several balls in play on this issue. First is the decline of the 'record industry' that has seen A&R men going from the Ritz to the Travelodge. This is of course the result of the decline of physical product, but I would also posit that it is also the result of mismanagement: a failure to cope with change, to keep up with music tastes, to detect new revenue streams, to rationalise and restructure effectively. Now mainstream, major label music hasn't changed that much (apart from homogenisation), but several things changed over the past 20 years that have effected the way both that music, and the independent music community that (eventually) feeds and stimulates the mainstream. Things like the ease, speed and availability of downloads (often free via download sites like mediafire), the availability of information on music from sites like Wikipedia, people downsizing their possession of music (from hi-fi systems to cds etc.) the ease of purchasing hard to find music physically (ebay), mp3s (itunes) or both (amazon), the decline in record stores (both good and bad - some assistants were there to try and make you feel small, others tried to help you make buying decisions. Buying a record was often more about the cover than the music, or what friends you were with), the rise and fall of MTV (it killed off institutions like Top of The Pops and the Singles chart, though by splitting itself between genres and channels it has overspecialised and lost out to the internet), diffusion of radio stations thanks to digital and online radio (and the death of John Peel) so people don't really use the radio to discover new music anymore, increased revenues for established acts touring (leading to much reforming of the likes of Led Zepellin, Black Sabbath, Stone Roses, Happy Mondays etc) with small venues and bands dying out due to people preferring to stay in to surf the net for music rather than go out to discover it for real (Aids Wolf splitting up, Newport TJs closing down). Certainly in the UK and US this has resulted in the record companies taking less risk, there being fewer 'scenes' developing, and there being less exciting underground bands and music, all of which meaning the mainstream is even more stale and uninteresting than it has ever been. Just look at X Factor etc. This is a problem for all forms of music as a stale mainstream means fewer music fans in general, less opportunity for new artists or sounds to emerge (it is over 20 years since Nirvana), hence a crisis for, and homogenisation of, music. Fear of risk is a monumental problem that results from falling revenues. Promotion of bands and hence band success is also based on labels taking risks - less money=less risk=less good music.
HISTORY LESSON: I can remember downloading on napster for the first time back in 1997, I think it was a Slint live recording that contained a cover of Neil Young's 'Cortez the Killer.' It took hours using dial-up with numerous dropped connections and crashes. Now you can find and download an album (legally or illegally) in a matter of seconds, but then there were no legitimate sources of mp3s, if you wanted music on your pc then you had to rip cds. This was a period of transition from tape to cd. I had many hundreds of tapes of copied albums, mixtapes and John Peel shows - either copied from friends, the radio, or my own cds or vinyl. I partly did this transferring to tape so I could play albums in the car, but also so I could see if I liked a band a friend liked - if I did I would often buy a copy, as a tape copy offered inferior sound quality. Again the process took ages, and tapes were easily chewed or damaged so when cd burning appeared it was a revelation. However in the early days this was also time consuming and often the CD-R's wouldn't play in hi-fi cd players. All this copying was for personal use, and often was because I could not find a copy of the album at my local record store (remember them?) or they could not order it in for me. Amazon/ebay had not taken off and many bands/labels did not have a website. So that was my music collection - numerous vinyl, tapes and cds (including bootlegs) bought from record stores, gigs or via mail order (Southern Records had an excellent service), probably an equal number of copied tapes, plus a few mp3s of rare or hard to get songs. I do not consider my actions piracy (despite it technically and legally being seen as such) as I was backing up my records to another format, and obtaining music I could not have otherwise listened to. Over the years I reduced the tapes and CD-Rs thanks to amazon and ebay enabling me to obtain harder to get hold of material (albeit usually second hand - no money to the band there), though with the reduction in cost of hard drive storage and increasing time spent online it made sense to rip my cds. All this makes sense as physical storage space is increasingly at a premium in these times of higher population, where people like to have everything on a convenient hard-drive (or even in the cloud) rather than having the pain and expense of carting round piles of lps. 
The rise of convenience of being able to pretty much download any album ever made in a matter of seconds (pretty much for free), with cheaper computers, storage and internet means it is no surprise people have made the switch. Not so long ago middle aged men were putting classic lps into landfill to replace them with cds - then the cds replaced with mp3s.  The problem with this (sort of) non-physical media is that the sound is inferior to vinyl (as Steve Albini will assure you), and you don't get (all) the carefully selected by the band artwork. Now companies will try and assure that mp3/flac etc are great quality formats, however the average punter doesn't care about any of this, they just want to possess the MUSIC - that is the sounds that come out of their player that their ears hear. Possession is important here as often the average punter may have heard the song at a club, gone home to find it, downloaded it illegally, or avoided possession altogether by streaming it from Spotify, then never listened to it again. Spotify is really wrong as it pays so little to artists, though it does allow people to hear albums in their entirety so punters can decide if they want to buy it. The problem is that most people (like Emily) are quite happy to continue listening to it on Spotify as they don't have to pay for it and it is the same quality as if they had downloaded it. The point is some people can and are prepared to pay, however many have learned that not paying is more convenient and the norm - this needs to change.  Psychology plays a part here too as people are fickle - one day they may be willing to buy an album, the next they may not - I can remember going into a record shop several times and looking at the same record each time debating whether I could afford to buy it but also whether I really wanted it - being able to download it and listen to it properly (not 10 second samples) would have helped. I know sometimes it is nearly impossible to wait for a new album by your favourite band - I have downloaded an album (on itunes) that I had pre-ordered from the band because I couldn't wait Some music lovers will go out of their way to buy vinyl direct from a band because they know that their money will go toward helping that band make more music or go on tour and that the record will sound better than mp3. Happily bands are putting mp3 download codes with lps so fans have an instant back-up they can listen to on the move. This is great and the way to go. It is also okay that mp3s are emailed around between friends as the sharing of music is often the best way of people discovering new music, as I did with mixtapes from friends. Even downloading something illegally from a dodgy site is acceptable if: a) every other legitimate means of hearing the music has been exhausted, b) the band/label are defunct/album is out of print and stupidly expensive second hand c) you are a totally skint music obsessive who has to hear something that you know is good an will help you become the next Kurt Cobain.  Point c) is really important here as not everyone can afford new music, and many of you may recall that many great musicians come from deprived backgrounds. Cobain must have copied albums from friends, if he hadn't would he have heard the Vaselines? Would he have produced In Utero? I don't think that downloaders should be blamed or be given a massive guilt trip. The problem has been the sheer speed at which everything got posted to download sites, offering music fans the opportunity of being able to hear every album they've ever wanted to hear at their leisure on whatever platform they wish for free. I would never have enough money to buy all the music I want to, and I consider it a shame that I have to make decision over what to buy. If something is out of print, like the God Machine's 'One Last Laugh In A Place Of Dying' was until recently, then we either have to spend a fortune on a second hand copy or forgo listening to it. The opportunity download sites and bloggers offered real music lovers was often like putting a heroin filled syringe in front of a Junky and saying to them - well this is top quality morphine made by Chinese experts in the field, now you are not allowed to sample it, although if you do the Chinese experts will be killed and no more of it will be made. The only way you can take this morphine without the makers being killed is to pay $10 for it...The junky injects the syringe after the word morphine and ignores the rest. Most real music fans do what they can afford to do to help the deserving independent music industry, it IS up to the record companies, labels, bands, ISPs, search engines and governments to figure out what to do to improve revenue streams. This issue has only come to light after major label albums have been leaked and posted on download sites causing labels to believe they have lost revenue, though I doubt they lost much, if it was only independent artists being downloaded then there would have been no problem. I suggest a clampdown on dodgy download sites, setting up a task force that can check and shut down sites that bands and record companies identify as distributing their music illegally, record companies should join forces like pressure groups (rather than remaining divided and conquered by middlemen like itunes and spotify) and should look into working with download and streaming sites as ways of distributing and advertising their artists, bands should do the same with bloggers ( a fine example of this is http://www.shinygreymonotone.com/ ), ISPs and search engines should block dodgy download sites and Governments should look again at copyright and internet legislation and its enforcement so that artists (a vital part of our culture) are protected as is the record industry (a vital part of the economy), and that download/filesharing sites give some of their revenues back. If none of this happens then record companies will be schlupped by itunes and spotify who will be able to sign, market and distribute artists direct.

Film is part of this equation too as without Hollywood Megaupload would not have been shut down. The film industry has homogenised too, as you can see from recent bland and inoffensive blockbusters - even Ridley Scott has fallen into it. People can stream virtually any newly released movie (albeit in generally poor quality) illegally and Hollywood don't like it one bit. The difference between this and music is that Hollywood is a clear market leader that holds a financial monopoly over the industry, and as such can afford to lose a few quid on a movie. Cinemas and independents producers cannot. I am of the opinion that films should be seen in the cinema, however, mainly because of the quality issues watching films online illegally should not be a crime, wheras hosting films by streaming sites should be. Movies are quite different from film though many of the issues are the same, and will become more problematic as technology improves. The rise of 3D has been a direct response as the 'experience' is only possible at the cinema. The problem is most of the films are crappy, and Hollywood does very little to help smaller film producers and independent cinemas, or promote a vibrant industry. If Emily White's generation don't want to pay for albums they sure as hell don't want to pay for films, however the cinema event (like the live gig) is still enough of a draw to keep making money, independents, because their films don't usually get distributed illegally online, have it as tough as it was, though not as tough as indie music labels and underground bands. 
The issue of 'freedom of the internet' appears here again, but as most people have no problem with ISPs shutting down child pornography sites the same should apply here - a law is being broken - enforce it. 
As for Free Culture - there is something called public domain where after a certain amount of time, under certain conditions copyright runs out and material is free to distribute see http://archive.org/ and http://www.gutenberg.org/ and http://www.ubu.com/ for more interesting material than you can shake a stick at. That is free culture. However buying a new album then posting it on your blog for everyone to download for free is not Free Culture, it is stupid as numerous people will now download it free rather than buy it, and your $10 to the band should be sent with a kick in the teeth, as it may be the last album the can afford to make. What I find funniest about these blog posts it that some of the people who download the album show enough guilt as to comment on the blog, thanking the blogger for the post, stating - 'Been meaning to buy this' or 'I lost my copy' or 'the dog ate it' etc. 
As an 'artist' myself, both solo and in a band I totally understand and I'm with Lowery on most issues. It is impossible as an unsigned act to generate any hype, tour, market, record or even practice without investing large sums of money and time into your act. Without large savings you are willing to invest, a solid benefactor or getting signed you aren't going to get your music out 'there'. You'll be lucky to get a few local gigs, maybe a half decent recording and a few friends following you on facebook. We've played many local gigs and unless each member of the band has lots of friends willing to come to your gig it will probably be audience free. Get a popular band to headline and their fans will ignore your performance, as will fans/friends of local support. You will maybe sell one cd (for about £3) to someone who liked your set and cares about music. If you organised the gig you will not get paid. There will never be an A&R man looking to sign unless you play in Camden and are either lucky or a cocaine dealer. The venue takes all the bar money and a cut from door takings for door staff. The headliner came from out of town and needs petrol money. That is probably it. Each member must maintain their equipment, chip in for practice space and transit to gigs. Splits must also be made for recording (£100 a day average) unless you go lo-fi and do it all yourselves, in which case you need recording equipment (not cheap) and loads of time, mastering (£100ish average) and manufacturing. Why you do this you are not sure as you are never likely to sell anything except the one copy at the occasional gig you play to nobody. Still it is nice to do vanity publishing - have a nice cd for nostalgia. All this time you need to work to stay alive and fund all this. As you work it is impossible to tour without booking a holiday, which you need to spend with your family not your band. You try to get a 'presence' online, posting your music to last fm, Spotify, bandcamp, myspace etc, but can't help but feel that this is a bit like giving your hard work and investment away, still you may get some income, fans and sales. No. For all the plays, views and positive comments you still get no money coming in. You are not on a 'known' label. You don't play gigs with 'known' bands. You try and get some publicity - go on local radio, send you record off to be reviewed, invite reviewers to gigs. No one listens to local radio, it is a public service funded by either charity or the bbc, and even if they do they've never heard of your band before so don't really listen (John Peel's show was the exception as people would listen and if your band got played you stood a chance of people checking you out, because John had good taste - there is no equivalent to this now). The reviews come in. Mostly positive but placed in online mags and blogs no one except bands like yours read, only to read reviews of themselves, the only negative reviews occur in the local listings magazines a few people actually do read. The gig reviewer does not make him/herself known at the show and the review never materialises. By this time the band has split due to time/family pressures or internal arguments over lack of progress... 

Look at this link - http://www.greenman.net/unsigned/portlands
this band have spent real money on a professional video, underlined their credentials - headlining a 10000 people festival, mates with Elbow, recorded in the states with name producer 'Press coverage, interviews and radio play followed, including interest from a variety of music promoters and industry representatives.' BBC airplay, headline slots a Manchester Academy, European tour and gushing reviews. Yet this band is UNSIGNED. Not only that they have entered this competition despite having all this behind them. However this is the problem for bands with no backing - how do you compete with bands that risk and invest everything just to get signed - the label get an instant product with fans, records, tours - the lot, all the company have to do is sort out a risk free contract to distribute and promote the record and they should get some return. No label would invest in a band that haven't got these minimum elements sorted, even if their music was incredible. In fact the qualitative element of music was lost a long time ago. 
Unfortunately these days everything is on your computer/phone - your record collection, your bank, your friends, your record shop, you library even your University. People, we need to get out more, and we need to own more real stuff. Virtual 'goods' cost zip in manufacturing - while this is good environmentally it means there is massive profit to be made, and sometimes you just get sick of staring at a screen. 
Bottom line: 
Labels should get together if they feel they are being robbed. There used to be camaraderie between indies like Touch&Go, Dischord, Drag City, Skin Graft etc - what happened?
Bands need to find new models to make their music pay - though it must be remembered that being an artist often means great sacrifice, living in poverty etc. like Van Gogh. Though that doesn't mean it's okay to get ripped off.
Punters need to understand the joy of vinyl and go to more gigs. Get off the computer. 
ISPs need to get a grip, self regulate and stop companies that infringe copyright - and block sites.
Search engines should take responsibility and work with ISPs to stop advertising on download/filesharing sites and block results.
Governments need to update legislation and work with Artists, record companies, labels, ISPs and search engines to deal with these issues rather than doing knee jerk missions like taking out megaupload.
Emily White should not feel guilty for what she has done, though she should understand that the music industry has changed and that not getting any money to bands means that some great bands will never happen now, and that she will will never get a paid job in that industry.
David Lowery (I agree with many of his points) should understand that not paying for music is, and always has been a part of the music industry that should be understood, incorporated and utilised, rather than using guilt to extract money from punters. 

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Higher Education (response to Guardian Blog)

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/education/mortarboard/2012/jun/18/academia-not-stressful-for-me?fb_source=other_multiline&fb_action_types=news.reads
'Personally, I think we need to move away from the narrative of stress and focus instead on the opportunities for fulfillment that academia can offer.' I agree. I hereby withdraw all your funding, double your workload and expect you to teach for free.

The world should be 'preached' to about the value of our work by the Universities, the government and the media. Instead the latter continually berates students for being lazy party animals with rich parents (okay, some are) while the government look to cut funding to Universities and students (who are forced to pay for the privilege of higher education), hoping parents and private investors can fill the void (higher education should be a right for all young people who have the academic ability to be enriched by the experience, benefiting wider society).
(As they are not paid) It is not the job of students to 'preach' Students should study, teachers teach, disseminators disseminate.

Researching/studying is both stressful and joyful. Trying to think up new ideas, interpret difficult texts and write academically to tight deadlines is stressful, hard work. The knowledge that failure is possible and all the time and money invested could be wasted is the most stressful thing of all. That is what people are anxious about.
As someone who sees 'cheerfulness' as somehow opposite to stress you clearly know nothing about the latter.

UK Universities are in general chronically underfunded and shockingly managed (having worked for two, studied at another and seen how things are done in Switzerland). Since the credit crunch in 2008 Universities have purged staff to a shocking degree, generally expecting academic and administrative staff to pick up the slack resulting in higher workloads and less pay. Researchers on 2-3 year contracts have stress, as do lecturers on 2 year probation with REF. Lecturers and professors have the constant threat of redundancy from departmental cuts dependent on academic 'trends' that seem to involve an ongoing shift toward 'business studies' type courses and Mandarin at the expense of Humanities subjects that are at the core of our cultural identity. I have seen professors go blind with stress.

What is most worrying is the Conservative focus of your post. It seems to be heading towards 'Big Society' territory, implying that it is right for students to pay for the joyful experience of higher education, and perhaps that teachers should do so for free as well as it is so much fun. The government has already tried to make public librarians volunteers so this is not so far-fetched.

(I am final year distance learning PHD (who loves his subject) at a supportive University, with a 2 year old child and working a 4 day week).

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Community, Education and UK news

It has struck me, since I have been living in Switzerland, and since I will soon return to the UK, that people here live and function in communities far more effectively than in the UK. Most of the housing here is made up of four or more floor blocks of flats (even older houses like the one pictured appear to house several families), that are predominantly rented, unlike the UK's dominance of private ownership and individual family homes of two or more bedrooms in mainly detached suburban estates. The city here is very compact, with far less suburbia leading to a greater sense of community, less reliance on cars and out-of-town shopping centres. That is not to say that such things don't exist, they are just less of a focal point and offer less of a threat to established, smaller, high quality shops.
The education system is also completely the opposite of the UK. Private education is the inferior sector here as because the state system is so good and well funded that only pupils who fail their studies or drop out are forced to pay to complete their education in the private sector, which somehow seems fairer, and makes sense. In the UK not only is private education better, but only the rich can afford it, AND the sector has charitable status so gets tax breaks. Failing pupils are bounced around the state system and are failed by it. After primary school pupils already start to specialise into ability and career path, something only begun at 13 in the UK. They are divided here between academic and vocational. There are also in most cantons, unlike the UK, several different schools depending on attainment level. Also the A-level equivalent system is much harder, with a much greater emphasis on languages, typically at least two having to be studied.  
Every so often I have been checking back on the BBC news website and Guardian to 'keep up to date' as it were and I've been feeling increasingly distant from events in the UK that no longer seem relevant to people's real lives. It could just be living at a distance but the UK government seems increasingly out of touch although there seems to be no real opposition to what they are doing (despite it being apparent that Labour are saying the right things they don't seems to be getting anywhere) up to the point that Jeremy Hunt seems to have gotten away with some pretty dodgy behaviour, Boris Johnson got re-elected and David Cameron doesn't understand what LOL means. What are the Lib Dems doing anyway. And with the Queen's jubilee farce going on it all looks like Thatcher's Britain all over again. I really cannot understand the national pride in a monarchy with historical blood on its hands, no real English blood in its veins and having done nothing of value for the nation except constantly draining it of resources for idiotic events like this. I just don't get it. Coverage of the events in the news was total, and seemed to drown out events in Syria and other issues that should be seen as far more important. I don't want to sound like a leftist Glen Beck but what is happening? I thought the phone hacking would destroy the Murdock monopoly and reinvigorate proper investigative journalism. It seems it has only forced it further back into its shell so celebrities can carry on their affairs in peace...

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Murdoch


  • See below for section 216-229 of the House of Commons
    Culture, Media and Sport Committee
    'News International and Phone-hacking' report.
    This is what the 4 Tories could not agree with. I wonder why?

    Who is being partisan - the four Tories or the six Labour and Lib Dem MPs?

    'Conservative Louise Mensch called it "a real great shame" that the report's credibility had potentially been "damaged" as a result, with the report carried by Labour and Lib Dem members backing it. [...]
    Tory MPs objected specifically to the line branding Mr Murdoch "not fit", with one, Philip Davies, telling a press conference the committee had seen "absolutely no evidence" to endorse such a "completely ludicrous" conclusion.'

    Oh and who is being partisan Louise Mensch?: 'On the 1st May 2012 at a press conference held to discuss the report from the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee investigating hacking allegations by newspaper titles owned by News Corporation Mensch was vocal over her disagreement with the majority of the committee about the suitability of Rupert Murdoch to run an international company. She appeared to make the case that Rupert and James Murdoch had probably been innocents misled by multiple people who worked for them. She took an opportunity during the conference to mention that one of the people apparently named in the report as misleading parliament was now editing the New York Daily News in an apparent attempt to question the credentials of that publication. The New York Daily News is a rival to News International titles in the United States. Mensch then made her first appearance after the news conference on the television news program Boulton and Co. on Sky News - a channel where News Corporation is the majority shareholder and James Murdoch had been chief executive.'

    Decide for yourself:

    216. The history of the News of the World at hearings of the Committee is a long one,
    characterised by “collective amnesia” and a reluctance fully and fairly to provide the
    Committee with the information it sought. News International has repeatedly stonewalled,
    obfuscated and misled and only come clean, reluctantly, when no other course of
    action was sensible and when its wider commercial interests were threatened. In Rupert
    Murdoch's own words to the Leveson inquiry, News Corporation in the UK mounted a
    cover-up.
    217. In any company, the corporate culture comes from the top. In the case of the News of
    the World this is ultimately the American parent company of News International, News
    Corporation and its chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch has
    repeatedly claimed that News Corporation has a zero tolerance approach towards
    wrongdoing.300 He stated this, indeed, long before he gave evidence to the committee, when
    he gave the inaugural Thatcher Lecture in London on 21 October 2010: “we will not
    tolerate wrongdoing” he told his audience. He also made similar statements at the annual
    general meeting of News Corporation in Los Angeles in October 2011 when, in relation to
    phone-hacking, he said there was “no excuse for such unethical behaviour” at the company
    and that staff had to be “beacons for good, professional and ethical behaviour”.
    218. On 8 April 2011, News International finally issued a statement admitting that phonehacking
    had indeed occurred in a number of cases and was not restricted to the News of the
    World’s former royal reporter, Clive Goodman. It offered certain civil litigants an
    unreserved apology and a compensation scheme. At this point, the ‘single rogue reporter’
    defence was clearly dead. That defence had become very questionable long before, but now
    that News International had finally acknowledged that hacking had been widespread, it
    was clearly no longer tenable.
    219. In his testimony to us and also the Leveson inquiry, Rupert Murdoch has
    demonstrated excellent powers of recall and grasp of detail, when it has suited him. Had he
    been entirely open with shareholders on 21 October 2010—and with this Committee on 19
    July 2011—he would have learned for the first time on some date between 21 October 2010
    and 8 April 2011 that he had been misled by senior employees of his company.
    220. Such a revelation, had it happened, would have been a shock. He was the chairman
    and chief executive officer of a major international company. He had repeatedly given clear
    and categorical assurances to the general public, and to his shareholders, that phonehacking
    and other wrongdoing were not widespread and would not be tolerated at News
    International. These assurances had now turned out to be false. This is not a situation a
    chief executive would or could tolerate, still less simply ignore. Action would have been
    taken.
    221. Yet, when asked by the Committee if he “knew for sure in January [2011] that the ‘one
    rogue reporter’ line was false”, he replied: “I forget the date.”301 This is barely credible. Had
    he really learned for the first time at some point in the six months following his Thatcher
    Lecture that he had been deceived, and so that he in turn had deceived the public and his
    shareholders, that moment would have been lodged forever in his memory. It would have
    been an unforgettable piece of information.
    222. On the other hand, had he suspected all along that phone-hacking and other
    wrongdoing was endemic at the News of the World—that the means justified the ends in
    beating the competition and getting the story—and that elaborate, expensive steps were
    being taken to conceal it, it is entirely understandable that the precise moment between 21
    October 2010 and 8 April 2011, when he recognised the game was up, might have slipped
    his memory. And all the more so, had he already realised the truth long before those dates.
    223. In such circumstances, even if he took no part in discussions about what to reveal and
    when, there would probably not have been a clear moment of revelation. There would have
    been a gradual erosion of the ‘one rogue reporter’ fiction to the point where a collective
    decision to abandon it would have been taken. In those circumstances, it would be entirely
    understandable that he should forget the date, if indeed there was a single date on which
    the decision was taken, rather than an unfolding contingency plan involving gradual
    admissions.
    224. The notion that—given all that had gone on, right back to evidence given over
    payments to the police to our predecessor Committee in 2003—a hands-on proprietor like
    Rupert Murdoch had no inkling that wrongdoing and questionable practice was not
    widespread at the News of the World is simply not credible. Given his evidently fearsome
    reputation, the reluctance of News International employees to be open and honest
    internally and in their evidence to the Committee is readily understandable. In assessing
    their evidence, the culture emanating from the top must be taken into account, and is likely
    to have had a profound effect on their approach in 2007 and 2009 in evidence given to the
    Committee.
    225. A further example of this culture and Rupert Murdoch and his management’s failure
    to focus on serious wrongdoing within the organisation was his response to the
    Committee’s questions about attempts by Neville Thurlbeck, then chief reporter of the
    News of the World, to blackmail two of the women involved in the newspaper’s
    controversial exposure of Max Mosley’s private life. His reply that this was the first he
    had heard of this claim and that no one in the UK company had brought the allegation to
    his attention303—if this was indeed the case—indicates a seriously wrong state of affairs in
    his company. Furthermore, it appears that having had the matter brought to his attention
    70 News International and Phone-hacking
    during questioning by our committee, he had still not read the Eady judgement by the time
    he gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry on 26th April 2012.
    226. When asked if he agreed with the judge in that case that this “discloses a remarkable
    state of affairs at News International”, Rupert Murdoch replied “no”. He appeared to see
    nothing unusual in News International failing to investigate or take action when a senior
    employee was cited by a High Court judge as resorting to blackmail in the course of his
    employment. This wilful turning of a blind eye would also explain Rupert Murdoch’s
    failure to respond (or to have another executive respond) to a letter sent to him in New
    York by Max Mosley on 10 March 2011, inviting him to order an investigation at News
    International into the blackmail allegation.
    227. Another example of Rupert Murdoch’s toleration of alleged wrongdoing is his
    reinstatement, on 17 February 2012, of journalists who had been arrested. This is in
    contrast to most organisations this Committee can think of, which would have suspended
    such employees until the police had confirmed that no charges were being brought.
    228. Rupert Murdoch told this Committee that his alleged lack of oversight of News
    International and the News of the World was due to it being “less than 1% of our
    company”.This self-portrayal, however, as a hands-off proprietor is entirely at odds with
    numerous other accounts, including those of previous editors and from Rebekah Brooks,
    who told us she spoke to Rupert Murdoch regularly and ‘on average, every other day’. It
    was, indeed, we consider, a misleading account of his involvement and influence with his
    newspapers.
    229. On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at
    all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about
    phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going
    on in his companies and publications. This culture, we consider, permeated from the
    top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective
    corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude,
    therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a
    major international company.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

COWMAN ON COWMAN


Q: What are you all about?
A: Cowman emerged as a response to the bullshit in music. My band (birdbath) couldn’t get their shit together so I figured, “I can do something on my own.” Taking cues from early Touch and Go drum machine bands like Big Black and Flour I started making beats, playing distorted bass over the top and attempting to do vocals, recording it all onto a four-track. It is all really lo-fi and an early philosophy I wanted to stick to was not to overwork material, just come up with a beat, play a riff over it a couple of times to get a feel for it, record it, then jot down some words and record them. Only if I was really dissatisfied with the results would I scrap a song or re-record.
Q: What’s with the persona/costume
A: Again to do with my disillusionment with UK bands at the time I started. I was fed up of seeing bands that just tried to be cool, and had clearly not thought about what their band-name meant or thought about having some kind of stage gimmick. Steve Albini with Big Black used to set off firecrackers before a show, Faust did all kinds of crazy things before, during and after shows. Hanatarash destroyed a venue with a bulldozer. I wanted to create something different rather than just another bunch of losers with guitars playing loud music. So I got a cheap boiler suit, some welding goggles and some hazard tape and there was Cowman. A friend found a cow’s pelvis in a field that we made into a kind of helmet that I wore for a while, but it was so uncomfortable I gave it up. Recently I gave up on the goggles, as I was sick of not being able to see at shows.
The name came from a few places, first I am a vegan, and vegan shit can stink out a place, so when a flatmate said, ‘dude, you stink like a cow, man’ the name stuck. I also like the Simpsons connection, ‘don’t have a cow, man’ and the reference to a little known song by U.S. Maple “When a man says ow.” As a vegan it is a reference to the fact that people are animals, like saying a cow is like a man – you eat beef, but would you eat man beef? Kind of confrontational. Most people don’t get it though.
Q: What’s with the music?
A: I like loud, distorted bass sounds, and so that it what I have tried to create. I have recorded about 7 albums worth of material, with the first effort ‘cowman’ now unavailable. That had a mixture of material where I was experimenting with synths and different drum sounds, and some of it is poor quality. The first proper album, ‘The Joy Of Not Being Sold Anything’ I am still quite happy with. It came about as I was living in London and had been working on material for a project I was working on with a friend called Midnight Moth. That was about recording an album in 24 straight hours. We had already recorded two fairly successful albums, however we got stuck with ‘artistic differences’ on the third, fell out big time (I haven’t spoken to him since) and put all my creative juices into this Cowman album. In response to my Midnight Moth partner selling cds with my playing on them without either my consent or my feeling that the material was good enough to sell was to put together an album to give away free. The golden inspiration was seeing the fresh Banksy graffiti on a London billboard giving me the title and cover of the album. Nice. Next was the pun titled ‘gina,’ get it? Cowmangina. Ha ha. This is probably my favourite album as I managed to get a really high pitched, electronic sounding bass/guitar sound that reminded me of Big Black. It is also pretty dark too. After that was “Apocalypse Cow” (not the best pun I know) which was a lot more experimental and disjointed – there is some synth stuff, live drums, improvised stuff and some of my favourite songs like bubblegum bum rape and senigalia on there, my first release on ingue records. The last album was the crushingly intense “palpating the rumen” Around 70 minutes of relentless high impact music. I was trying to create an album as tight as Big Black’s “Songs About Fucking” and succeeded in making an album twice the length. In hindsight I should have cut some of the material, but at the time I wanted an evil beast, and that is what I ended up with, similar in some ways to ‘gina.’ That was in 2009, and since then I have recorded a covers album and an experimental concept album (one track is on soundcloud), no release date for either yet, maybe 2013. 
Q:Tour?
A:I find playing live a real headache, too many gadgets to keep track of – this is the problem with being solo, however it is hugely rewarding so I may be tempted into playing if I get the right offer. The problem is the state of music in the UK at the moment is so deflated that a noise-rock act like me is no longer a draw even as a novelty. With bands like Aids Wolf breaking up and Doomsday Student only playing the Supersonic Festival in Birmingham and London it says to me that traditional touring routes are off, only major cities need apply. Last time I played Bristol I was seen by about 10 people which gets a bit depressing, and if the promoter is losing money then so are the bands. Live music is a decent income stream if you are in the right band and you are promoted properly. Unfortunately being unsigned or ‘novelty’ does not get you good support slots or get you a good booking agent. But we’ll see after I have finished my studies.
Q:Studies?
A: I’m currently working of a thesis about the writers PaulBowles and William S. Burroughs. When that is done I may have some more time for music…

Sunday, April 15, 2012

A Nice Little Earner

UK dentists, in 2009, earned an average of £89,062 a year. Take home. Do they earn this? the last check up I had it took around 3 minutes for the dentist to look at my teeth, a service that cost me £16. I worked out the numbers, roughly against that amount (not taking into account expenses, but also more lucrative procedures such as implants, bridges, extractions etc.), it works out at about £2000 a day, which is 10,000 a week, a staggering £400,000 a year (working only 40 weeks). No wonder it is a profession attractive to business minded parents. But this is precisely the problem. It cannot be counted a 'caring' profession when it is so lucrative, as it inevitably attracts people who are interested in making money rather than making people well. A business minded person would not be considering what is in the interest of the patient, but rather what would earn the dentist the most money, hence the large number of unnecessary treatments, misdiagnoses and the array of additional services (such as the visit to the hygienist, usually costing £30 plus, which only recently has been added as a private service, in the past, and officially still, the dentist should perform at least a scale and polish, though now a patient has to demand this as dentists can save themselves time by not doing it, though ethically this means patients teeth care is worse). I have had numerous bad dentists over the years and am so sick of the service it makes me sick. People are right to be scared of dentists - as chances are they will have worse teeth and less money as a result of visiting one. I have had root filling done badly in 1992 causing an infection leading to an unpleasant hospital operation called an apisectomy. I still have an infection 20 YEARS LATER despite numerous check-ups (£16+ a time), an unnecessary extraction that cost £200 (another dentist would have charged £400 - both nhs) and a private root filling that cost £700, all to no avail. See why I place dentists up there with Estate Agents and Bank Managers. see here: BBC NEWS 2009
General Practitioners get my goat too. They're on at least £60,000 a year take home (why it's less than dentists I don't know, they seem to do loads more work). Okay, there are some good G.P.s out there, but increasingly their job is simply Google-ing your symptoms and then prescribing the appropriate drug (the brand on which depends on which company sponsors that particular doctor see here). G.P.s are also G.P.'s because they couldn't specialise at Uni - most med students, particularly the brightest and the best specialise in order to become surgeons or specialists in a field - so yes I am implying that G.P.s are the inferior med students. Hence the high numbers of misdiagnosed patients. It is again also the case, because of the law of interests, that it is never in a doctor or drug company's interest to cure a patient, as their income stream would instantly disappear. And new 'illnesses' like depression, ADHD etc. have essentially been constructed to sell more drugs and give G.P.s more work to do. Now I have suffered depression, and have had close friends suffer it too, and I have never seen a worse attempt at a cure than Prozac. And the UK government want to put these people on £300,000 a year, with more power over surgery spending? The drug companies must be rubbing their blood covered hands with glee. For more see here.
After seeing Schneidlomat's blog post about therapists in the US, I figured I should add my thoughts about said profession here. In my not extensive experience I have found 'councelors' (there is some confusion over what defines a councelor, therapist and psychotherapist - usually it is how long they spent in college) a somewhat strange breed. The question I ask myself is what makes someone become a councelor - and my cynical modern mind leads me to think in terms of 'it seems like an easy job - I'm a people person who likes talking to people - I can't think of anything else to do.' In common with dentists it is never in a councelor's interest to 'cure' the patient as this will cut off a source of revenue, what they need is to keep you interested in seeing them, as regularly as possible. It is also their job to listen to you and talk to you but it is not their job to either care or be your friend. This can often be a problem, as depression can stem from loneliness (more common than you'd think, especially in large cities - people who have lots of friends can feel very lonely too - some friendships can be very complex and unhelpful to mental health). Now I don't have an answer I just think it is worth thinking about some of these issues before seeking 'professional' help. I can also remember Psychology undergraduates who should never be councelors telling me that that was precisely the career path they saw for themselves. Again most people see Psychology as a 'soft' subject taken by undergrads who have no clear direction in life - not the best type of person to help you sort your life out. Perhaps it is better to try speaking to close friends or relations you already trust, or writing your feelings down. And cheaper.

Unfortunately most forward thinking countries have gone via the Health Insurance, total privatisation option, and while in the UK most would not wish to lose the NHS, it seems it has already gone. Just visited a Doctor in St Gallen. Fantastic service, wonderfully clean waiting and consulting rooms, waited 30 seconds before being seen by a really nice, friendly, relaxed doctor who put me at ease and got to the bottom of my problem very quickly, and as it was a common treatment could prescribe and supply medication in house. Medication was given to me at reception, the bill would be posted to my address! I love that. The trust that exists in sending bills to people that no longer exists in the UK. Returning to the hell that is UK dentistry you now have to pay for your check up or treatment BEFORE YOU HAVE HAD IT. This is insane - they have your address on record but still there is no trust, they want your cash or debit card payment UPFRONT, so if you are dissatisfied with the service - tough. Maybe it is because many people have tried to get away without paying but society cannot work like this. If I am going to buy a car I don't go to the garage, talk to the salesman and give him a load of money before I've even seen it or given it a test drive. I don't go to the supermarket ad give a load of money to the cashier and then collect my food (unless I buy online like a lazy, agoraphobic idiot). And if the dentist's don't trust me to pay for my treatment, why should I trust them to give me a good service - this thing works both ways. I'll miss St Gallen. When the UK does lose the NHS the private care provided will be like dentistry is already, upfront, overcharged poor service, and probably not far off the massive increases in charges made by water companies with no improvement in infrastructure or the private train system where ticket prices are a lottery and there is no guarantee you'll get anywhere. While the private systems in Switzerland are expensive, the work and work well. There is pride and trust in a system that works, and the taxes seem fair, along with wage levels being sufficient to pay for health insurance etc. Unfortunately in the UK wage levels are already insufficient to pay for NHS care, so a private system would in all likelihood be disastrous.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Youth, Commitment, Investment and the 'pernicious idea that success is not related to effort and work'

Here is an image that sums something up for me. In the background is St Gallen Cathedral, religious centre and main tourist attraction of the canton. In the foreground is, right next to, even precariously close to the buildings is a basketball/five-a-side court. Religion and youth sports go hand in hand, not in a pernicious attempt to encourage youth into attending church but simply because activities for the youth are considered important and worthy of investment.
Unemployment here is around 3%. That's right 3%. In the UK it is around 8%. Youth unemployment is around 5% here. It is around 30% in the UK. Now I don't wish to get into any economic arguments I don't fully understand but comparing where each country stands the biggest problem for the UK is a combination of cultural difference - the lack of investment in youth - and the massive public debt held by the UK, around double that of Switzerland.
Big news at the moment in the UK is the work experience/slavery recruitment initiative between large companies and the Government - see Ian Duncan Smith's irritating and poorly written article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104022/The-delusions-X-Factor-sneering-job-snobs-betray-young.html
Here he outlines his vision of work in the 21st century - that stacking shelves in Tesco's in order to keep your benefits should be regarded as not demeaning but a positive way to be an active member of society. What this misses is that most, if not all young people on benefits are not there through choice, but are in fact actively looking for work that they have studied for, only to find that those jobs either don't exist or no longer exist due to the current government's mismanagement of the economy (allowing the banks to dictate policy, failing to invest in growth, allowing small businesses to fold, supporting big businesses as they expand and fill gaps left by failing small businesses, cutting NHS funding while looking to privatise, etc.). His idea that young people are workshy X-factor wannabe yobs is at least generalising at worst derogatory. Looking at some of the comments from right wing Daily Mail readers it seems even they balk at IDS's summary of the situation. It is amazing for him to comment, 'it’s small wonder that businesses have hired so many foreign nationals in the past decade or so. The fact is that they can’t find the employees of quality that they need from the available British workforce.' It's is not quality that is lacking (although how much quality do Tesco's need to stack shelves?), though the statement answers itself - more investment in education and training for from infants to uni would surely help this, it is that foreign nationals will generally work for less pay, and if they lack some ability to fully understand English they can often be blagged into working in poorer conditions - I am not saying foreign workers are stupid in any way, it is just large companies know what they are looking for in an employee - hence them signing up to this great deal to get their shelves stacked practically for free. The youth eventually become all to aware that success is not based on luck after buying the tenth scratch card in Tesco's Metro.

What is needed in the UK is a holistic approach to investment in youth - from parks, youth clubs, schools to opportunities for apprenticeships, FE courses, access to University and quality internships and work experience placements that do not teach young people that a life of work is the drudgery of shelf stacking or order picking - you may reduce idleness but you'll raise the suicide rate. Regarding X-Factor why is this show such a hit? Kids do nothing but watch TV because sports clubs are too expensive, parks are being bulldozed, youth club funding withdrawn, the streets are unsafe to play in, libraries are closing, and parents & schools fail to teach that books are important. Make life for the next generation more pleasant, and instill some respect and discipline now or they will never forgive you in the future.

When Youth unemployment rose in Switzerland in 2009 (to 6%) here is their approach - http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Economy_unites_to_fight_youth_unemployment.html?cid=67688

" We can't afford as a society to have a lost generation or a group falling out of the labour market. That's a social problem. "
Thomas Daum, director of Swiss Employers' Association

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Airports, Alienation, Brooker (again) and Filesharing.

They have some cool stuff here. This photo is taken from the mini-shuttle at Zurich airport. You ride in it for three minutes to get to one of the terminals and it rocks. Feels like something out of Akira crossed with Heidi. I say Heidi because contrasting with the ultra high-tech is the piped in traditional sounds of Switzerland, replete with mooing cows, yodeling and birdsong. Neat.

Anyway having been here for more than three months I feel a sense of guilt for not having learned even the most basic German phrases. I know hello, bye, yes, no and some numbers and that's it. My excuse? You can get by without it. I've done okay up to now and I've really been too busy to give it the study time it deserves. That all said the guilt has started to set in, and I start hearing immigration ministers from the UK rattling on about immigrants being deported if they don't learn English - and wondering whether I'd deport myself. So here is the deal - I'll try and learn a basic phrase like 'please can I have ...' by the time I write my next post.
On top of the guilt, and despite most people here knowing a little English I am feeling a little isolated, or alienated, in that I cannot just go anywhere and necessarily make myself understood (not that I would in the UK - it's just the fact the possibility is no longer there). It's not such a bad feeling, and not having so many people to talk to seems to make the written word a bit sharper. I guess it's like Paul Bowles said,
‘I can think of no greater delight than to be a foreigner, among those who are not of my kind.'

Which leads neatly into my seemingly ongoing attack on a writer who's work I used to admire greatly, particularly his "TV GO HOME" parodies, his TV guide rants in the Guardian guide (collected in Screenburn) and their TV counterparts Screenwipe and Newswipe, his massively underrated collaboration with Chris Morris Nathan Barley and his Big Brother/Dawn of the Dead parody Dead Set. However he seems intent on becoming something of a king of the 'lazy left,' becoming embroiled in a pointless debate over whether David Cameron is a lizard.
essentially writing a bunch of faintly funny, nihilistic, verbose hot air. Frankly I couldn't care less about whether Cameron is a lizard, he could be a three breasted shoggoth with mugwump offspring for all I care - the problem I have is with Brooker taking up all this column space with pointless discussion about the PM, turning Cameron into a harmless figure of comedy rather than the man who is helping to (continue to) sell the UK up the river. You see it is okay slagging off TV shows in his comedy rant style, but when you get political you have to back it up with facts and intelligent satire that makes a serious point. Not pointless caricature.
The main issue I have with the former computer game reviewer this week is with his taking a gig to 'write some travel pieces' for the Guardian. So they are moving him away from politics then. Good. Ah wait hang on, what is this about green kit-kats and robo-toilets in Japan, hasn't everyone from Clive James to Jonathan Ross done the whole 'woah aren't the Japanese like totally weird, it's like their country is like totally foreign man' thing. He starts with the usual point of entry - commercially available foodstuff, something familiar, yet in Japan strangely unfamiliar to the foreigner, like a green kit-kat (which he feels the need to inform us, despite a close up picture, that it is,
'not the wrapper – I'm not that easily impressed – I mean the chocolate itself is green.' Anyone who has been into any sweet shop in the world can find equivalent unusual treats, I used to frequent Cybercandy in London who stock far more interesting and unusual titbits. Come on Charlie is that your opening gambit? What next, the high-tech toilet angle? Surely that's too obvious? Oh...Apparently not. Brooker sees fit to stick down some more lazy journalism about the state of Japan's toilets, he writes that, 'It's disconcerting, defecating into a robot's mouth.' Ha. Hilarious. I have to say I still miss the advanced sense of hygiene and comfort you get from a Japanese toilet, and the fact that as a culture they think it is actually important to spend time and money on developing such things is admirable, and unlike the 'British' tendency to stick our noses up at such things, or say how weird or quaint it all is, the Japanese proudly and unprudishly forge ahead. I wish all toilets were heated, had a built in bidet function and performed a health check while playing traditional music. But these two initial observations of his aside, I am appalled by what he had to say next, 'every now and then when, the sheer sensory overload gets too much, I retire to the hotel room to stare at the television.' The guy is in Japan, presumably Tokyo, the most vibrant and advanced city in the world. He decides to stay in and watch TV. Could his wife not have recommended a few things for him to do (former Blue Peter presented must have been to Japan - though I can't be arsed to find out). And what does this connoisseur of visual media make of it. Well it's crap of course, but then TV is crap the world over, apart from HBO, which is just Hollywood TV anyway. Thanks Charlie for your pearls of wisdom. How much is the Guardian paying you? On top of expenses? Great. To end the piece he goes about reinforcing a stereotype about how Japanese people are incredibly polite and that if you ask someone in the street for directions they will do everything possible to help. Well firstly I doubt very much whether Mr Brooker was out in the street asking passers-by for directions in English, because if he was he would have found many would not have understood what he was saying. Asking for a Mos Burger too? Given all the culinary delights on offer is that the best you could ask for? Why not ask for Macdonalds?
In my experience Japanese people are on the whole very helpful and polite yes, but so are the Swiss, the German, the Chinese and even, on the whole, the British. This smells like lazy writing Brooker and I don't like it one bit. BROOKER GO HOME TO TV or video games where you belong. Grr. Hopefully I'll be going to Japan in a few weeks and I'll write a travel piece for free.

One last thing to mention is the apparent clampdown on filesharing by the FBI and US Justice Department. I don't have much of a problem with filesharing, particularly if the music is rare and hard to obtain, and much as I dislike musicians and artists not getting a fair-deal and their work being pirated, unless you are Lady Gaga or Spielberg this is not much of an issue, and even then while you roll around in your bath of money, eating gold leaf, driving gold cars sticking diamonds up your arse I'm not sure you'd care. Which leads us to the real issue. Money. It seems Kim Dotcom (hilariously changed his name from Schmidt) owner of Megaupload was arrested in New Zealand after electronically locking himself in his mansion, then in a panicroom with a sawn off shotgun. I love how loaded this guy had got in just five years, he had, '18 luxury vehicles, including a Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe and a 1959 pink Cadillac. The vehicles are valued at NZ$6 million ($4.9 million). Police said as much as NZ$11 million in cash was restrained in various accounts.' I guess this is from people subscribing to his site and advertising revenue, and to be fair, if people are dumb enough to sign up then fair play to the guy. Regarding the issue of copyright well if the copyright holders have a problem then shouldn't it be with those people uploading their material rather than the hosting site itself? Anyway in all probability the Feds won't do this kind of think again for a while as, firstly they went for Megaupload as they had servers based in the US so the Feds could legally indict, and secondly it seems to have had the desired effect of sending a shockwave through other hosting sites, and making bloggers who post links to files think about what they are doing. Though, along with SOPA, this seems to be part of a combined effort from the US govt. Hollywood and the major labels to scrape back some revenues. And perhaps it is a sign of some desperation as all these entities are under some considerable financial pressure. Expecting a war anytime soon anybody?

Monday, January 16, 2012