A few weeks ago, when the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, I felt a sympathy for their cause - the anger at corporate greed, the world financial crisis and, the increasingly pantomime villains, the bankers.
This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.
So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.
It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?
Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.
The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.
Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?
And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.
Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.
Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.
* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.
* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.
* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.
To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.
This must stop.
OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Thursday, 13 October 2011
NEWS: The Matlock Blackout
And so the Matlock Blackout continues, 18 hours and counting.
Yesterday afternoon, at about 1pm, an electricity substation in Winster (a village a few miles from Matlock) exploded. It took firefighters several hours to put out the fire.
At its peak the loss of the substation had knocked out power from 34,000 homes from Matlock to Ashbourne and on to Leek in Staffordshire. By mid-evening many homes had power back. Overnight, though, 15,000 homes were still without power.
The kids saw it as a great adventure, all excited with the torches they have for camping.
When I drove back into Matlock at around 8.30 p.m. it was odd - somehow spooky with the lack of people put and about, and also the darkness with shops, houses, puns and restaurants plunged into blackness.
Behind some windows there was the flickering of candles.
Also surprising was the number of businesses that had an emergency supply to illuminate their windows. I'm sure the environment weeps each night.
The local pizza delivery firm was somehow fully open and, I suspect, doing a roaring trade.
And what of today?
I had always thought a national grid meant that if one part failed another could be switched over but it appears not. There was an announcement last night from the County Council saying that Matlock could be without power "for a few days" - in the 21st century this is ridiculous.
I've just been sent a text from my children's school saying they have power back and so will be open as normal - that's a relief!
We're hoping the food in the freezer stays frozen and will try to charge phones, etc. probably via car chargers.
In the meantime, to conserve energy, it is a communications blackout!
-------------
7.13 a.m. update: My wife has just popped out and reports street lights have returned and some houses in our road seem to have power - how odd!
----------
11.53 update
And we're back. Power has returned!
Yesterday afternoon, at about 1pm, an electricity substation in Winster (a village a few miles from Matlock) exploded. It took firefighters several hours to put out the fire.
At its peak the loss of the substation had knocked out power from 34,000 homes from Matlock to Ashbourne and on to Leek in Staffordshire. By mid-evening many homes had power back. Overnight, though, 15,000 homes were still without power.
The kids saw it as a great adventure, all excited with the torches they have for camping.
When I drove back into Matlock at around 8.30 p.m. it was odd - somehow spooky with the lack of people put and about, and also the darkness with shops, houses, puns and restaurants plunged into blackness.
Behind some windows there was the flickering of candles.
Also surprising was the number of businesses that had an emergency supply to illuminate their windows. I'm sure the environment weeps each night.
The local pizza delivery firm was somehow fully open and, I suspect, doing a roaring trade.
And what of today?
I had always thought a national grid meant that if one part failed another could be switched over but it appears not. There was an announcement last night from the County Council saying that Matlock could be without power "for a few days" - in the 21st century this is ridiculous.
I've just been sent a text from my children's school saying they have power back and so will be open as normal - that's a relief!
We're hoping the food in the freezer stays frozen and will try to charge phones, etc. probably via car chargers.
In the meantime, to conserve energy, it is a communications blackout!
-------------
7.13 a.m. update: My wife has just popped out and reports street lights have returned and some houses in our road seem to have power - how odd!
----------
11.53 update
And we're back. Power has returned!
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
REVIEW: The Debt (15)
John Madden's new thriller, The Debt, is a remake of an Israeli movie of the same name made in 2007. It begins with three retired Mossad agents in Tel Aviv in 1997. It is long way from some of his earlier films like Shakespeare In Love and Captain Corelli's Mandolin, but has, perhaps, the twists and turns similar to the Inspector Morse episodes he directed back in the early 90s.
The movie is double cast with one trio of actors playing the lead characters in the 1990s and another set back in the 1960s and the action leaps backwards and forwards over the time periods.
Rachel (played by Helen Mirren/Jessica Chastain) and Stefan (Tom Wilkinson/Marton Csokas) hear news of their former colleague David (Ciarán Hinds/Sam Worthington). The three have been celebrated in Israel since they undertook a mission to capture a Nazi war criminal (the so-called "Surgeon of Berkenau") in East Berlin.
The Cold War, the Nazi's Final Solution and the Israeli Secret Service come face to face in this engrossing thriller with the trio of agents putting themselves into jeopardy before telling their story. But is everything what it seems?
It is superbly acted, particularly by Chastain and Worthington who, between them, steal the show, as well as being well scripted and filmed. It is a must-see movie for anyone who likes their thrillers thoughtful.
The movie is double cast with one trio of actors playing the lead characters in the 1990s and another set back in the 1960s and the action leaps backwards and forwards over the time periods.
Rachel (played by Helen Mirren/Jessica Chastain) and Stefan (Tom Wilkinson/Marton Csokas) hear news of their former colleague David (Ciarán Hinds/Sam Worthington). The three have been celebrated in Israel since they undertook a mission to capture a Nazi war criminal (the so-called "Surgeon of Berkenau") in East Berlin.
The Cold War, the Nazi's Final Solution and the Israeli Secret Service come face to face in this engrossing thriller with the trio of agents putting themselves into jeopardy before telling their story. But is everything what it seems?
It is superbly acted, particularly by Chastain and Worthington who, between them, steal the show, as well as being well scripted and filmed. It is a must-see movie for anyone who likes their thrillers thoughtful.
Monday, 10 October 2011
REVIEW: Peter Gabriel's New Blood
Peter Gabriel is well-known for his use of technology and vision, pushing the boundaries of what is possible. It is then, perhaps, a bit odd for him to dip his toe into the waters of orchestral versions of his back catalogue but that is exactly what New Blood does -"re-imagined arrangements" of Peter's songs without guitars and drum kits.
There have, of course, been rock/pop collaborations with classical musicians before - many end in failure and embarrassment - Deep Purple's Concerto for Group and Orchestra has to be one of the worst offenders. More recently, Elbow worked with the Hallé Orchestra and the BBC Concert Orchestra, giving their already successful album The Seldom Seen Kid a new life with orchestral colour.
New Blood follows in the wake of 2010's Scratch My Back album. On that album Peter re-worked songs by other artists including David Bowie, Arcade Fire, Lou Reed and Radiohead. As I understood it, the idea was that he'd scratch their back, by doing a new version of one of their songs, and then they'd scratch his, by doing a version of one of his songs. The second part of that seems to have been shelved for the moment, which is a shame.
In some tracks the simplicity of the melody is emphasised by clear, ethereal string textures, in others John Metcalfe's arrangements bring out the power and emotion from the original. It's fair to say, the most successful tracks are the darker, more theatrical ones but it's not an exaggeration to say that every track is given a new lease of life.
The tracks are fantastically performed by the New Blood Orchestra , a 46-piece ensemble, conducted by Ben Foster, who is probably best known for his work with Murray Gold on the Doctor Who scores.
Amongst all the new sounds and textures it is worth commenting on Peter Gabriel's voice which is still as vibrant and expressive as it ever has been. Not bad in a 61 year old.
A few weeks ago I went to watch the movie of Peter Gabriel's New Blood Live In London.
The simplicity of a concert movie taken to the next level with great visuals and effects and a use of 3D that, surely, even Mark Kermode would approve?
There have, of course, been rock/pop collaborations with classical musicians before - many end in failure and embarrassment - Deep Purple's Concerto for Group and Orchestra has to be one of the worst offenders. More recently, Elbow worked with the Hallé Orchestra and the BBC Concert Orchestra, giving their already successful album The Seldom Seen Kid a new life with orchestral colour.
New Blood follows in the wake of 2010's Scratch My Back album. On that album Peter re-worked songs by other artists including David Bowie, Arcade Fire, Lou Reed and Radiohead. As I understood it, the idea was that he'd scratch their back, by doing a new version of one of their songs, and then they'd scratch his, by doing a version of one of his songs. The second part of that seems to have been shelved for the moment, which is a shame.
In some tracks the simplicity of the melody is emphasised by clear, ethereal string textures, in others John Metcalfe's arrangements bring out the power and emotion from the original. It's fair to say, the most successful tracks are the darker, more theatrical ones but it's not an exaggeration to say that every track is given a new lease of life.
The tracks are fantastically performed by the New Blood Orchestra , a 46-piece ensemble, conducted by Ben Foster, who is probably best known for his work with Murray Gold on the Doctor Who scores.
Amongst all the new sounds and textures it is worth commenting on Peter Gabriel's voice which is still as vibrant and expressive as it ever has been. Not bad in a 61 year old.
A few weeks ago I went to watch the movie of Peter Gabriel's New Blood Live In London.
The simplicity of a concert movie taken to the next level with great visuals and effects and a use of 3D that, surely, even Mark Kermode would approve?
- The Rhythm of the Heat takes a little bit of time to get going - I was certainly doubting whether this was going to add anything to the original for a while. It begins as straight transcription with Peter Gabriel singing over orchestra, with lovely colourful sighs from clarinets and horns but, when the orchestra eventually takes over (around 3'55") in a terrifying orgasm of sound, you suddenly realise this is going to be an album that is more than just an overblown Greatest Hits-type package.
- Downside Up, a survivor of the Ovo, the Millennium Dome show, contrasts brilliantly with the ferocity of the previous track. The gently syncopated lower strings and delicate woodwind melodies contrast beautifully with the singing of Melanie Gabriel, Peter's daughter.
- San Jacinto begins with bells and piano reminiscent of early Steve Reich, then builds with pizzicato strings and staccato reed interjections that lead to broad Barber-eque string writing supporting Peter's singing.
- Intruder begins appropriately ominously, with orchestral effects created by extended playing techniques, then 'cellos begin a pattern that recalls the opening track. Peter Gabriel's vocals on this track are at their most dramatic and theatrical. He'd make a truly terrifying childcatcher if there was ever a remake of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
- Wallflower opens with a simple piano ostinato and long string chords that provide a very pure and simple support the voice.
- In Your Eyes launches into the sound world of Michael Nyman full of string syncopations and pounding double basses. It is imaginiately scored for just strings and voices - no brass, woodwind or percussion. The chorus, with the morse code violins ( ._. is the letter R - ok, I'm sure it's not significant) is truly joyful and uplifting.
- Mercy Street returns us to the world of Steve Reich with mallet instruments a-plenty: vibraphones, glockenspiels, etc. This track doesn't work as well as many other tracks, becoming rather bland by the end.
- It's fair to say that Red Rain borrows liberally from the style of Michael Torke and Michael Nyman as well as Hollywood film scores of the past decade but is the real tour de force of the whole album. Powerful orchestrations and Peter's voice strident above the ever changing textures.
- Darkness begins like an angry We Will Rock You and is another example of Gabriel's use of music as theatre. What a shame he's never written a musical or opera.
- Don’t Give Up has Ane Brun take on the part originally sung by Kate Bush. I must confess this is one of my least favourite of Peter Gabriel's tracks in its original format and, I'm afraid, this version has done little to change my mind. Ane Brun's voice has, for my liking, too much vibrato and is rather nasal and the arranger simply transcribes the original, adding nothing new or insightful until the last minute and half which leaves you wondering what might have been.
- Digging in the Dirt lifts the spirits with it's ticking start - again, it made me think of Michael Torke's Yellow Pages - some tremendous orchestral writing add to the threatening vocals but I do wish they'd come up with a better whip sound (it sounds like something from Hugh Grant's character in Music and Lyrics (00'48") - thin and so very 80s). Otherwise a good track.
- The Nest that Sailed the Sky is the final track on the album proper - tracks 13 and 14 (and various extras on deluxe versions) are additional. It is purely instrumental- an orchestral dawn - slowly coming to life, then resting.
- A Quiet Moment is, I guess, a work of musique concrete - it uses gentle ambient sounds to trickle over the listener. It is a little masturbatory really - and would probably work better as the final track, where most people would give up and ignore it.
- Solsbury Hill brings the album to a jubilant end. The chamber music start leads to a fuller orchestration after the first couple of minutes. It is probably the favourite track of Gabriel fans and it is right and proper that it brings things to a conclusion.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
OPINION: The BBC cuts are just tinkering, the whole corporation needs to be reviewed
When cuts of about 20% to the BBC were announced last week there were the usual outcries from programme makers and bleating from unions. To me the cuts are merely tinkering. The whole corporation needs reviewing.
To me there is one big question that needs addressing:
What is the point of the BBC?
Yes, we all love the BBC (well, maybe not the Daily Mail, but most of us). It is where the majority of the UK turn when there are matters of national significance and a trusted source of information around the world.
It is a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) at its best, but therein lies the problem: it is doing more than a public service broadcaster needs, it is doing an awful lot that could and should be handed over to the commercial sector.
Now I realise that I am likely to be accused of snobbery and elitism but it is, in my opinion, the pandering to the proletariat that has caused many of the BBC's current financial problems. It is, though, important that the BBC becomes more accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
So... My proposals...
Television
I would sell off BBC1. Whilst it is the biggest audience winner of the BBC (aft the web site) it is, largely, things that would be more appropriate on commercial channels. Shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Total Wipeout really have no place on a PBS. Why is license fee money being used to line the pockets of so-called "celebrities" to do silly things? This is a criminal waste of the license fee.
I'd also don't see why the BBC should have chat shows which, let's be honest, are largely used to promote a product whether it be a new movie, TV series or book. Yes, have a chat show but interview people who are genuinely interesting or have done something extraordinary, not just give them money to advertise themselves. How does that fit with the BBC's own code of ethics about advertising?
I'd make sure that ALL programmes were repeated but not, as is so one the current situation, at a similar time of day 24 hours later, at different times of day to incase audiences.
I think the changes to BBC2 are, largely, good, with daytime being used for repeats and news programmes. I'd probably merge BBC2 and BBC3 into an "entertainment" channel and have BBC4 for culture and documentaries. BBC4 is a jewel that should be protected more then anything else the BBC does.
The BBC News channel should become more like Radio Five Live - a news and sports broadcaster with programmes like Click moving to BBC4.
Children's programmes should be safe from cuts but, also, some classics from the output could be used.
I'd scrap all religious programming. It is not the BBC's joob to promote religion. yes, BBC4 could still do documentaries about religion but actual worship should be stopped. I'd welcome the end of both Songs of Praise and Radio 4's Thought for the Day both of which, I find, are hugely offensive to all right-thinking people and irrelevant in the modern world.
Radio
It is in radio that I would have the biggest changes.
Radio One, Radio Two and BBC 6Music should all be sold off to commercial radio. Much of what they do replicates what commercial stations already do. It is not what a PBS should be doing.
Radio 3 and radio 4 do an ok job but need tightening up.
Radio 3 should stop trying to become Classic FM. In the last few years it seems to be gradually or hong into Classic FM 2 - why? Classic FM do a very good job with their way of presenting "classical music" - there is no reason for soundbite classics to be on two networks. Radio 3 must focus on the areas that Classic FM does not cover - lesser known works, contemporary composers, musk for rasa bands and wind bands - and more "arts documentaries". It should also be the radio home for literature - more an arts channel and less a classical music channel.
I'd make some dramatic changes to the BBC Proms too - but that probably warrants a blog post of its own!
Radio 4 should be news and non-arts documentaries. I'd scrap sexist programmes like Women's Hour.
Apparently there were discussion about merging Radio Five Live with local radio. This should have happened. The mindless nonsense that fills so many local radio stations, endless phone-ins for the lonely and insane, should not be funded by the license fee. Radio Five Live, as it is, but with localness, weather and sport once an hour is an easy solution that provides everything of use that local radio has to offer.
I'd continue with the. BBC in its current format - trying to offer more and more back catalogue of programmes as possible. BBC iPlayer should have many more old programmes available.
Enrichment and accessibility are the key.
The BBC should not be trying to compete with ITV or Sky but trying to offer an alternate. I fear the BBC has forgotten it is a public broadcast service and has been too hawing ratings.
People will watch quality and want more than mindless pap. The BBC needs to become a 21st century broadcaster and stop living in the past. Innovation is key to future success. Ridding the BBC of the culture of celebrity, must for the sake of celebrity, will do the whole of society good.
Please, Mark Thompson, stop tinkering with the corporation and have a roots and branch review.
The future is bright but the BBC are at risk of missing the boat.
To me there is one big question that needs addressing:
What is the point of the BBC?
Yes, we all love the BBC (well, maybe not the Daily Mail, but most of us). It is where the majority of the UK turn when there are matters of national significance and a trusted source of information around the world.
It is a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) at its best, but therein lies the problem: it is doing more than a public service broadcaster needs, it is doing an awful lot that could and should be handed over to the commercial sector.
Now I realise that I am likely to be accused of snobbery and elitism but it is, in my opinion, the pandering to the proletariat that has caused many of the BBC's current financial problems. It is, though, important that the BBC becomes more accessible to as wide an audience as possible.
So... My proposals...
Television
I would sell off BBC1. Whilst it is the biggest audience winner of the BBC (aft the web site) it is, largely, things that would be more appropriate on commercial channels. Shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Total Wipeout really have no place on a PBS. Why is license fee money being used to line the pockets of so-called "celebrities" to do silly things? This is a criminal waste of the license fee.
I'd also don't see why the BBC should have chat shows which, let's be honest, are largely used to promote a product whether it be a new movie, TV series or book. Yes, have a chat show but interview people who are genuinely interesting or have done something extraordinary, not just give them money to advertise themselves. How does that fit with the BBC's own code of ethics about advertising?
I'd make sure that ALL programmes were repeated but not, as is so one the current situation, at a similar time of day 24 hours later, at different times of day to incase audiences.
I think the changes to BBC2 are, largely, good, with daytime being used for repeats and news programmes. I'd probably merge BBC2 and BBC3 into an "entertainment" channel and have BBC4 for culture and documentaries. BBC4 is a jewel that should be protected more then anything else the BBC does.
The BBC News channel should become more like Radio Five Live - a news and sports broadcaster with programmes like Click moving to BBC4.
Children's programmes should be safe from cuts but, also, some classics from the output could be used.
I'd scrap all religious programming. It is not the BBC's joob to promote religion. yes, BBC4 could still do documentaries about religion but actual worship should be stopped. I'd welcome the end of both Songs of Praise and Radio 4's Thought for the Day both of which, I find, are hugely offensive to all right-thinking people and irrelevant in the modern world.
Radio
It is in radio that I would have the biggest changes.
Radio One, Radio Two and BBC 6Music should all be sold off to commercial radio. Much of what they do replicates what commercial stations already do. It is not what a PBS should be doing.
Radio 3 and radio 4 do an ok job but need tightening up.
Radio 3 should stop trying to become Classic FM. In the last few years it seems to be gradually or hong into Classic FM 2 - why? Classic FM do a very good job with their way of presenting "classical music" - there is no reason for soundbite classics to be on two networks. Radio 3 must focus on the areas that Classic FM does not cover - lesser known works, contemporary composers, musk for rasa bands and wind bands - and more "arts documentaries". It should also be the radio home for literature - more an arts channel and less a classical music channel.
I'd make some dramatic changes to the BBC Proms too - but that probably warrants a blog post of its own!
Radio 4 should be news and non-arts documentaries. I'd scrap sexist programmes like Women's Hour.
Apparently there were discussion about merging Radio Five Live with local radio. This should have happened. The mindless nonsense that fills so many local radio stations, endless phone-ins for the lonely and insane, should not be funded by the license fee. Radio Five Live, as it is, but with localness, weather and sport once an hour is an easy solution that provides everything of use that local radio has to offer.
I'd continue with the. BBC in its current format - trying to offer more and more back catalogue of programmes as possible. BBC iPlayer should have many more old programmes available.
Enrichment and accessibility are the key.
The BBC should not be trying to compete with ITV or Sky but trying to offer an alternate. I fear the BBC has forgotten it is a public broadcast service and has been too hawing ratings.
People will watch quality and want more than mindless pap. The BBC needs to become a 21st century broadcaster and stop living in the past. Innovation is key to future success. Ridding the BBC of the culture of celebrity, must for the sake of celebrity, will do the whole of society good.
Please, Mark Thompson, stop tinkering with the corporation and have a roots and branch review.
The future is bright but the BBC are at risk of missing the boat.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
OBITUARY: Steve Jobs (1955-2011)
Of course I never met Steve Jobs but he still had an amazing effect on my life.
I still remember the date: December 4th 1999. That was the day I bought my first Apple product.
It was a Blueberry iMac. I loved it. It just worked. Straight from the box, it worked. No effort, no installing countless disks. Within minutes I was online from home for the first time ever.
Before that, I had been using an Atari for music stuff - notation was done on a program called Sharpscore, which was good but a bit buggy, and sequencing using Cubase. My old Atari was great for music things but it wasn't the way ahead.
My iMac had, what was then, a huge hard drive (a whole 8GB!) and, because it was in the days before broadband had arrived, it announced it was connecting to the Internet with that fanfare of pings and pings and white noise that will surely be remembered as one of the most important sounds as we reached the new Millennium.
For the creative industries there is no other choice. Apple computers are the ONLY ones worth bothering with.
Apple products have made being a musician much easier and PCs have, and still, trail in their wake.
Since then I have had MacBooks and a more recent iMac, various iPods, several iPhones and an iPad. I've used my Apple TV to stream movies from computer to TV. I've bought books and magazines digitally. My life has been totally transformed by Apple. They've made life simpler and easier and they've done it better than anyone else.
Sure, I've been accused of being a Fanboy I'm not. So many who snipe at Apple products do so having either never tried them or simply from a position of jealousy. And even if I was a fanboy, doesn't it make sense to be a fan of things that are just so good. As near to perfect as is possible?
But, of course, Steve Jobs was more than just Apple. As a parent, Pixar and their innovations have enriched the lives of my children. Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and Up! to name just four of their movies, will be remembered as some of the greatest movies ever made.
Steve Jobs was an inspirational figure, who took a whole generation and made them realise that it was right to dream. His products have changed lives in a positive way. His contribution to society will not be forgotten.
I still remember the date: December 4th 1999. That was the day I bought my first Apple product.
It was a Blueberry iMac. I loved it. It just worked. Straight from the box, it worked. No effort, no installing countless disks. Within minutes I was online from home for the first time ever.
Before that, I had been using an Atari for music stuff - notation was done on a program called Sharpscore, which was good but a bit buggy, and sequencing using Cubase. My old Atari was great for music things but it wasn't the way ahead.
My iMac had, what was then, a huge hard drive (a whole 8GB!) and, because it was in the days before broadband had arrived, it announced it was connecting to the Internet with that fanfare of pings and pings and white noise that will surely be remembered as one of the most important sounds as we reached the new Millennium.
For the creative industries there is no other choice. Apple computers are the ONLY ones worth bothering with.
Apple products have made being a musician much easier and PCs have, and still, trail in their wake.
Since then I have had MacBooks and a more recent iMac, various iPods, several iPhones and an iPad. I've used my Apple TV to stream movies from computer to TV. I've bought books and magazines digitally. My life has been totally transformed by Apple. They've made life simpler and easier and they've done it better than anyone else.
Sure, I've been accused of being a Fanboy I'm not. So many who snipe at Apple products do so having either never tried them or simply from a position of jealousy. And even if I was a fanboy, doesn't it make sense to be a fan of things that are just so good. As near to perfect as is possible?
But, of course, Steve Jobs was more than just Apple. As a parent, Pixar and their innovations have enriched the lives of my children. Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and Up! to name just four of their movies, will be remembered as some of the greatest movies ever made.
Steve Jobs was an inspirational figure, who took a whole generation and made them realise that it was right to dream. His products have changed lives in a positive way. His contribution to society will not be forgotten.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
OPINION: Slow and sure wins the race...
Let's be honest, we all make mistakes.
Sometimes the mistakes are serious and life changing, sometimes they're inconsequential and forgotten before they've happened.
When yesterday, both the Daily Mail and Sky News wrongly announced that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the Twitterverse (alongside various ant-Mail and anti-Murdoch commentators) exploded in outrage accusing these news outlets of trying to predict the news.
Now I'm sure every news broadcaster was ready with both guilty and not guilty graphics, information and discussions. It would be foolish not to be prepared for both circumstances as nobody was sure which way the judgment was going to go.
Surely it's like the obituaries of famous people... newspapers don't wait until someone dies then hastily scramble around for someone to write a few hundred words by way of tribute. No, all the leading newspapers will have ongoing obituaries that are regularly updated when new information is available or when they have done something else worthy.
I'm sure, for instance, that The Times has had an obituary for Margaret Thatcher since the early 1970s. In recent years, through a number of bouts of ill health and rumour, it must have been dusted down on many occasions and ready to publish should the Grim Reaper finally dare come for the Iron Lady!
But, I hear you cry, that doesn't excuse Sky News or the Daily Mail from using the wrong result. True, they were being professional by being prepared but to use the wrong result requires another explanation.
I think there are two reasons for the mistakes.
First. Simple human error. Pressing the wrong button, or pressing it too early.
The judgment handed down in Perugia wasn't straightforward and, of course, for the English-speaking press, it was in Italian and required translation.
The judge did find Amanda Knox guilty but of defamation, not the murder of her friend. I guess, via interpreters or translators some journalists weren't listening to all the detail, heard the word 'guilty' and went into action, launching headlines, pre-prepared column inches and appropriate comments to support the court's decision. A simple error.
Or was it?
The second reason is that they were in a race to be the first to announce the result. They were only skim-listening.
Just like when, at a general election, there's a handful of constituencies desperate to be the first to declare their result and the broadcasters all want to be the first to predict and call the final number of seats won by each party, so on rolling news programmes they want to be the first with the headline. Being first attracts viewers. Being first increases ratings. But being right is more important.
In fact, if a rolling news broadcaster isn't first with the news what is their point?
So maybe the mistake made by the Daily Mail and Sky News, amongst a myriad of other, lesser news organisations, is really our fault, and can be laid at the door of our seemingly insatiable desire for information AND NOW!
When I was growing up in Basingstoke in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was one infamous occasion when the local newspaper got the news very wrong.
Arthur Atwood was the elderly reviewer of local concerts and plays for the Basingstoke Gazette and he always gave, what appeared to be, very fair and thorough comments. The problem was that while I was reading his comments about an orchestral concert in which I should have played I realised that his detailed review was about a concert that had been cancelled. He'd written and submitted his x hundred words before the event and, when it was postponed, hadn't remembered to pull it from publication. Whoops!
So, I guess, we all mistakes but, as with so many of the personal mistakes we all make every day, maybe a little more time taken over things, a tad more care and a dose of honesty would prevent the errors and stop things going awry.
Let's be honest, if we heard the result of the Amanda Knox appeal at 8.48 last night or at 8.50 would it have mattered? Of course not. All that mattered was the accuracy of the information.
Sometimes the mistakes are serious and life changing, sometimes they're inconsequential and forgotten before they've happened.
When yesterday, both the Daily Mail and Sky News wrongly announced that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the Twitterverse (alongside various ant-Mail and anti-Murdoch commentators) exploded in outrage accusing these news outlets of trying to predict the news.
Now I'm sure every news broadcaster was ready with both guilty and not guilty graphics, information and discussions. It would be foolish not to be prepared for both circumstances as nobody was sure which way the judgment was going to go.
Surely it's like the obituaries of famous people... newspapers don't wait until someone dies then hastily scramble around for someone to write a few hundred words by way of tribute. No, all the leading newspapers will have ongoing obituaries that are regularly updated when new information is available or when they have done something else worthy.
I'm sure, for instance, that The Times has had an obituary for Margaret Thatcher since the early 1970s. In recent years, through a number of bouts of ill health and rumour, it must have been dusted down on many occasions and ready to publish should the Grim Reaper finally dare come for the Iron Lady!
But, I hear you cry, that doesn't excuse Sky News or the Daily Mail from using the wrong result. True, they were being professional by being prepared but to use the wrong result requires another explanation.
I think there are two reasons for the mistakes.
First. Simple human error. Pressing the wrong button, or pressing it too early.
The judgment handed down in Perugia wasn't straightforward and, of course, for the English-speaking press, it was in Italian and required translation.
The judge did find Amanda Knox guilty but of defamation, not the murder of her friend. I guess, via interpreters or translators some journalists weren't listening to all the detail, heard the word 'guilty' and went into action, launching headlines, pre-prepared column inches and appropriate comments to support the court's decision. A simple error.
Or was it?
The second reason is that they were in a race to be the first to announce the result. They were only skim-listening.
Just like when, at a general election, there's a handful of constituencies desperate to be the first to declare their result and the broadcasters all want to be the first to predict and call the final number of seats won by each party, so on rolling news programmes they want to be the first with the headline. Being first attracts viewers. Being first increases ratings. But being right is more important.
In fact, if a rolling news broadcaster isn't first with the news what is their point?
So maybe the mistake made by the Daily Mail and Sky News, amongst a myriad of other, lesser news organisations, is really our fault, and can be laid at the door of our seemingly insatiable desire for information AND NOW!
When I was growing up in Basingstoke in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was one infamous occasion when the local newspaper got the news very wrong.
Arthur Atwood was the elderly reviewer of local concerts and plays for the Basingstoke Gazette and he always gave, what appeared to be, very fair and thorough comments. The problem was that while I was reading his comments about an orchestral concert in which I should have played I realised that his detailed review was about a concert that had been cancelled. He'd written and submitted his x hundred words before the event and, when it was postponed, hadn't remembered to pull it from publication. Whoops!
So, I guess, we all mistakes but, as with so many of the personal mistakes we all make every day, maybe a little more time taken over things, a tad more care and a dose of honesty would prevent the errors and stop things going awry.
Let's be honest, if we heard the result of the Amanda Knox appeal at 8.48 last night or at 8.50 would it have mattered? Of course not. All that mattered was the accuracy of the information.
Monday, 3 October 2011
OPINION: I don't want to give to charity
In the last couple of years it's become almost impossible to walk through any town centre without being approached by chuggers.
No sooner do you log into any form of social media without reading someone asking for a donation for a walk or swim or skydive or Himalyan trek or something else to raise cash for some worthy cause.
The Royal Mail must make a fortune from the amount of junk mail from charities asking for regular payments to a variety of causes and daytime television viewers are bombarded at most ad breaks with requests for "Just £2 per month".
And if you dare check your emails you'll always find someone doing something exciting for charity.
It's soon going to be the season of the charity shopping catalogues... ' Tis the season to be generous.
I teach part-time. Along with many other schools the youngsters are encouraged to take part in charitable events, there's a 6th form organised charity Christmas Fair, each school house has its own charity. Pupils are told it's good to care for others and raise money for charity and, yes, I have taken part and done my bit. I've written songs used for Comic Relief and Children in Need events, I've swum stupid numbers of lengths or municipal pools and I've donated to friends and family who have (or currently are) saving the world/caring for the sick/etc.
But why?
Isn't charity fundamentally wrong?
When I think of the causes I have donated to over the years I am shocked that the vast majority of these causes isn't fully funded by central government.
Think about it.... Cancer Research, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care.... The list could go on and on and on.
There are some charities that I don't support too - as a pacifist I don't ever donate to the Royal British Legion and its younger doppelgänger Help for Heroes - both of which I think go beyond caring for injured personnel and end up glorifying war. Something I find abhorrent. But, if we as a nation do send young men and women overseas to fight, the state should provide the cost of care.
So why don't we? Surely, in a modern, civilised society all the charities I've just named, and many more that I haven't named, should have no need to exist because everything they do should be funded by the state.
Is it a sleight of hand by governments dating back decades?
As far as I can see it's simply a way of keeping taxation lower than it ought to be.
Instead those who care more or are directly affected by a particular "issue" choose to pay a tax by donating to charity.
Governments keep taxes lower and wash their hands of responsibility of a huge swathe of things.
Personally, I'd rather pay more in taxes and see lots of these "good cause" charities go out of business.
Charity should be for extras.
Charity should not be for basics.
Whoever stands to be PM in 2015 (or sooner should the coalition fall apart before that), they'll have more chance of getting my vote if they said they'd increase taxation and take responsibility for many of the basic and fundamental things which are currently done by the charitable sector.
In the likely absence of political will is there another solution?
Yes.
We should make 2012 the Year of Charity - and the best thing we should all do, to support the most essential charities, is spend 366 days not donating to any of them and forcing the government to take its responsibilities seriously.
So, next time, before you put your hand in your pocket to give to a flag day or sponsor your work colleague stop and think - is this seething the government should be doing? If it is maybe you'd do the cause more good by NOT donating.
No sooner do you log into any form of social media without reading someone asking for a donation for a walk or swim or skydive or Himalyan trek or something else to raise cash for some worthy cause.
The Royal Mail must make a fortune from the amount of junk mail from charities asking for regular payments to a variety of causes and daytime television viewers are bombarded at most ad breaks with requests for "Just £2 per month".
And if you dare check your emails you'll always find someone doing something exciting for charity.
It's soon going to be the season of the charity shopping catalogues... ' Tis the season to be generous.
I teach part-time. Along with many other schools the youngsters are encouraged to take part in charitable events, there's a 6th form organised charity Christmas Fair, each school house has its own charity. Pupils are told it's good to care for others and raise money for charity and, yes, I have taken part and done my bit. I've written songs used for Comic Relief and Children in Need events, I've swum stupid numbers of lengths or municipal pools and I've donated to friends and family who have (or currently are) saving the world/caring for the sick/etc.
But why?
Isn't charity fundamentally wrong?
When I think of the causes I have donated to over the years I am shocked that the vast majority of these causes isn't fully funded by central government.
Think about it.... Cancer Research, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care.... The list could go on and on and on.
There are some charities that I don't support too - as a pacifist I don't ever donate to the Royal British Legion and its younger doppelgänger Help for Heroes - both of which I think go beyond caring for injured personnel and end up glorifying war. Something I find abhorrent. But, if we as a nation do send young men and women overseas to fight, the state should provide the cost of care.
So why don't we? Surely, in a modern, civilised society all the charities I've just named, and many more that I haven't named, should have no need to exist because everything they do should be funded by the state.
Is it a sleight of hand by governments dating back decades?
As far as I can see it's simply a way of keeping taxation lower than it ought to be.
Instead those who care more or are directly affected by a particular "issue" choose to pay a tax by donating to charity.
Governments keep taxes lower and wash their hands of responsibility of a huge swathe of things.
Personally, I'd rather pay more in taxes and see lots of these "good cause" charities go out of business.
Charity should be for extras.
Charity should not be for basics.
Whoever stands to be PM in 2015 (or sooner should the coalition fall apart before that), they'll have more chance of getting my vote if they said they'd increase taxation and take responsibility for many of the basic and fundamental things which are currently done by the charitable sector.
In the likely absence of political will is there another solution?
Yes.
We should make 2012 the Year of Charity - and the best thing we should all do, to support the most essential charities, is spend 366 days not donating to any of them and forcing the government to take its responsibilities seriously.
So, next time, before you put your hand in your pocket to give to a flag day or sponsor your work colleague stop and think - is this seething the government should be doing? If it is maybe you'd do the cause more good by NOT donating.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
OPINION: I don't want to be British
It's not an anti-British thing - I don't want to be labelled as any particular nationality.
Earlier today I posed a question on Twitter and Google+:
Do you HAVE to be a nationality?
Is it a technical requirement?
The responses were, pretty much, what I expected.
Yes.
Some, with experience of living in different countries, told me their British passport/nationality made life much easier if there were problems.
So, is travel and identification the only benefit? It seems it may be the case.
I'm not trying to avoid taxation (I'm more than happy to contribute my fair share in whichever territory I happen to be domiciled), and I'm not trying to evade the law (I think it is right that there are laws to protect individuals and groups throughout the world).
It's just I don't want to be labelled as being British (or French, or American, or Chinese,or wherever).
My nationality was an accident of birth. In early April 1965 my mother happened to be in London at the moment I decided it was time to venture into the world. Yes, my mother is British and has, I suspect, never considered changing that. But why, because of choices my mother made before my conception, should I be given a tag of nationality.
One person responding to my post on Google+ claims that I could be free of nationality from birth had my mother had the foresight to to follow in the footsteps of Amundsen and Scott and go to Antarctica.
Even then, I would be expected to chose a nationality and not remain an international neutral
I despise nationality.
I watch international football or rugby or athletics or whatever for the quality of the sport not to cheer on others whose mothers made similar choices to my own.
I refuse to sing the British "National Anthem" - God Save the Queen is an awful dirge asking a non-existent deity for special attention for one person - it has very little to do with the real world or nationhood - but even if it was I'd find it distasteful and unpleasant.
Ultimately, nationality is about prejudice and division. It is the reason we have racists like the BNP and UKIP. It why we have wars (alongside religion) and it is why we have world divided by wealth.
I want us all to live together in peace and harmony, sharing knowledge and resources, and striving for a better future for everyone.
I don't see why I should be forced to be British with all the historical evils that carries.
I want a UN passport.
I want the right to be a citizen of the world.
Earlier today I posed a question on Twitter and Google+:
Do you HAVE to be a nationality?
Is it a technical requirement?
The responses were, pretty much, what I expected.
Yes.
Some, with experience of living in different countries, told me their British passport/nationality made life much easier if there were problems.
So, is travel and identification the only benefit? It seems it may be the case.
I'm not trying to avoid taxation (I'm more than happy to contribute my fair share in whichever territory I happen to be domiciled), and I'm not trying to evade the law (I think it is right that there are laws to protect individuals and groups throughout the world).
It's just I don't want to be labelled as being British (or French, or American, or Chinese,or wherever).
My nationality was an accident of birth. In early April 1965 my mother happened to be in London at the moment I decided it was time to venture into the world. Yes, my mother is British and has, I suspect, never considered changing that. But why, because of choices my mother made before my conception, should I be given a tag of nationality.
One person responding to my post on Google+ claims that I could be free of nationality from birth had my mother had the foresight to to follow in the footsteps of Amundsen and Scott and go to Antarctica.
Even then, I would be expected to chose a nationality and not remain an international neutral
I despise nationality.
I watch international football or rugby or athletics or whatever for the quality of the sport not to cheer on others whose mothers made similar choices to my own.
I refuse to sing the British "National Anthem" - God Save the Queen is an awful dirge asking a non-existent deity for special attention for one person - it has very little to do with the real world or nationhood - but even if it was I'd find it distasteful and unpleasant.
Ultimately, nationality is about prejudice and division. It is the reason we have racists like the BNP and UKIP. It why we have wars (alongside religion) and it is why we have world divided by wealth.
I want us all to live together in peace and harmony, sharing knowledge and resources, and striving for a better future for everyone.
I don't see why I should be forced to be British with all the historical evils that carries.
I want a UN passport.
I want the right to be a citizen of the world.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Friday, 1 April 2011
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)