weeks, pictures, days, words.

Futbul

2010-06-18T21:38:00.003+01:00

I have not written anything in a long, long, long time. Or, at least it feels like it. Currently I am working in a football shop on Carnaby Street. When people are told for the first time where I am working, I receive an expression of shock/surprise/curiosity. However, if you know me properly, you will probably realise that a football shop is possibly the best place for me to work.

This brings me nicely on to the subject of the continuing 2010 World Cup in South Africa. There are many things I could write about it in regards to the tournament and mass systems of communication (ergo, media), including some of the following: the quasi-superiority complex that people have taken in regards to the vuvuzela, or the complete commercialisation of every product to make it appear as WELL UP FOR ENGLAND. But all I really want to do is show you the complete, full-length, HD version of Nike's World Cup advert. Please, please, PLEASE watch it. If you know nothing of football and its personalities, it is still a brilliantly produced advert. If you know football players, then the pleasure is two-fold - try and name every player you see, there are so many crammed in. Plus, make an effort to spot a famous tennis player...

Rad, right? I know.

One more note on the World Cup. What I find odd is that the tournament is different to most football tournaments in that it is one of those events that manages to get people, who previously have absolutely no interest in the game, completely involved. Whilst I appreciate more people enjoying the game, I do find people talking shit about a subject they don't really know as if they know everything about it. Meeeeh.

Spotlight: Roman Gavras

2010-05-17T19:50:00.004+01:00

French director Roman Gavras has recently once again hit the headlines with the video for M.I.A.'s Born Free. Here is the complete video:

So, pretty graphic/hard-hitting/controversial, no?

This is exactly the problem. Music videos as short films that are instantly controversial are almost becoming the norm in our YouTube-based viral market. By this I mean that the labeling of a particular video as 'controversial' is changing in nature: originally, a video would be created, that would later on be labeled as controversial by particular sections of society. However, in our postmodernist, late-capitalist culture, it almost seems as videos are being created with the specific intention of the creators for it to become 'controversial'. The reasoning for this is that it garners more audiences, publicity, and therefore profit for creators: if something is called 'controversial', then audiences are therefore more inclined to check it out, because it feels contraband, or anti-establishment. It ties itself in with a very specific socio-cultural section of society: namely, those who are anti-capitalist, anti-mainstream, alternative people who are politically and ethically aware. Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. This label will sell a text to those who think they are not 'the norm'. I'm sure you know what I mean.

The trouble is, I can't work out whether this music video is actually, genuinely controversial, or whether it's just M.I.A. and Gavras making the video controversial for the sake of controversy and the benefits it brings. Therefore, I'm going to examine Gavras' earlier videos. Ready?

These are in chronological order. Firstly is the video for DJ Mehdi's superb Signatune:

Secondly, French hip-hop outfit Mafia K'1 Fry's Pour Ceux:

Thirdly is Changer Le Monde - Roce. I can't find it on YouTube and neither can I work out which one is artist and which one is title. Apologies. Fourth, Gavras directed I Believe by Simian Mobile Disco:

Then he directed the now infamous video for Stress, by Justice:

Which brings us to the video preceeding Born Free, that for The Age of the Understatement by The Last Shadow Puppets:

So, let's get to it. What unites nearly all of Gavras' work is his ability to give his subject matter an almost documentary aesthetic, to increase a sense of realism in the audience so the point seems more valid. Some of the videos feature humour steeped in the lighthearted as well as the ridiculous and absurd, such as the DJ Mehdi video as well as the Simian Mobile Disco one. Some of his work tends to revolve around the French underclass/working class, a point which was particularly potent in the context of the Stress video, which caused problems for society in France which was perhaps unaware or simply unwilling to accept the massive social problems it had (which has, at various points over the last few years, resulted in riots in working class areas, particularly the estates of Paris. The video for Pour Ceux also works around this basis, as does the video for Signatune.

Put simply, the variety of Gavras' videography means that it is quite hard to box him in any particular societal, political, cultural, or aesthetic labelling. If you were to corner me and demand a list of elements which define his work, I would state any of the following:

Documentary style film-making
Focus on working-class culture, or the dated and forgotten within society
Humour, sometimes lighthearted, sometimes absurd

These three elements all work in tandem, so that Gavras can bring our attention to parts of societies that are sometimes forgotten or even ignored, and the humour is often used to break our expectancy of what the society is. For example, the storyline in Signatune is heading towards a serious, perhaps violent, resolution, until it is broken and shown to be nothing more than male preening and maybe just a little bit of fun. The video for I Believe is interesting in that we are presented with the people we would expect to be least likely to be singing what sounds like a hip-hop/pop/boyband single, thus showing us the dichotomy between mass-produced, mindless pop, and the realities of a working, somewhat rural life. Essentially, most of Gavras' work tends to exploit this dichotomy on a wider level: not just between urban and rural, but the gap between the entirety of mainstream culture, and the lifestyles and societies that simply aren't presented on any level, or if they are, are almost entirely presented negatively and as 'the other'.

So what does this mean for Born Free? Is it simply controversy for controversy's sake, or a genuine societal/political statement that's got the goat of the more reactionary amongst us? I would argue that, whilst the video seems a tad contrived, Gavras' intentions are sincere (is that the right word?). My reasoning for this revolves around my preconceptions of the video. It was quite notorious, and all of the things people told me about it revolved around the killing of ginger haired people. Yet, this is but a small part of the video; there is an incredibly large amount going on: the people having sex, the old man smoking an unnamed drug, the reference to the Palestinian independence movement as well as the massive reference to the IRA. It isn't just US-branded soldiers murdering gingers by making them run through a minefield. If anything, I think I blame M.I.A. for the controversy-seeking nature of the video, although I should say that this is nothing more than me just not liking her in general, for no good reason - just 'one of those things'. But more than anything? It's impossible to tell whether or not this is a video genuinely, sincerely made, or a video simply aimed at the people who make a point in liking the 'controversial' and 'edgy'. But it's bloody well made, so that's got to count for something.

Adwipe

2010-05-14T22:49:00.001+01:00

Stunning advert. Shame I couldn't find it in HD, but JESUS

Derivative

2010-05-14T17:53:00.002+01:00

Not myself Tonight from exit-gfx on Vimeo.

A new single called 'Not Myself Tonight', but I fear she may have done this a bit literally: I wasn't aware that Christina had changed her name to Stefani Germanotta. She must be going a bit Gaga (honestly, if you're not getting my point I don't think you ever will).

Election

2010-05-06T13:11:00.003+01:00

This is taken from The Sun's homepage. Nice how they make Cameron look like a Union Jack-inspired form of pond wildlife, possibly a vole. In other news, the Mirror has basically infringed copyright law in their engaging of Class War against the Tories. Click here for the story.

Don't forget to vote.

Token Gestures

2010-04-21T11:54:00.003+01:00

Today (or sometime this week, it doesn't really make much difference) Google released a somewhat potentially controversial page called 'Government requests'. If you read/watch/listen to any sort of media/technology news, you'll be aware of the whole censorship issue in which Google is constantly involved, what with them having a pretty clear idea about it (i.e. they REALLY hate it). They got involved with China over the Chinese government's interference/alleged hacking of Googlemail accounts, and some other type of argument seems to be constantly going on.

In the face of this, Government Requests is basically a nice clear map of the world with each nation labeled, with certain numbers attached to them. Well, not all nations. If you read the FAQ they explain more. If you click on any nation shown, a dialogue box will show you several things: how many 'data requests' that particular government made to Google for, well, data. It also tells you how many 'removal requests' the government made to Google, and then promptly tells you a rough percentage of how much of this Google complied with, and then lists how many of each different Google products were affected (blogger, gmail, adsense, etc).

Whilst I, as a stereotypical Guardian-reading zealous liberal, appreciate what Google are trying to do by showing this type of information (showing they can't be controlled, standing up for anti-censorship, etc), I have some problems with the way the thing has been put together and presented. Loads of the supporting writing posted by Google insists on telling you, unless you didn't get the idea, that they're 'new at this' and that there's some innacuracies that come from a combination of how, why, and what something is censored (basically, there is some crossover between what they automatically censor (paedophillia etc) and what governments ask them to. Whatever). Why do they need to tell us? Just stick a 'Version 1' logo or something and most audiences on the internet are familiar enough with the way internet products work to know that a new product needs work. Where's this insecurity come from on Google's behalf? Secondly, if you look at China, the label is a bright red with a big ol' question mark next to it where the number should be. Why label it red? It's noticable enough. Why put a question mark, too? This is what made me think that maybe, just possibly, Google are using this as a form of self-advertising instead of a genuine philosophy of believing in the transparency of information. If you click on the question mark, it spills out some stuff about the fact that they can't 'disclose the information'. So, Google, if you KNOW how many requests China have made, or a rough estimate (and the fact that you've done it for every other major power would suggest you DO), why put a question mark? Put 'N/A'. A question mark is just inflammatory, childish, and petty. It's just Google shouting at their audiences that 'OOH LOOK BIG BAD CHINA'. You're not a government, Google. I know you want to be, but you're not. China believe in censorship, and if you want to market your goddam products there, you have to play by their laws. Even if you don't like it (which is probably why they've announced they're pulling out of China or something). Finally, how many of these requests do we get to find out about? I don't mean what they're about, but are these comprehensive figures? Apparently, there were about 59 removal requests for the UK between July and December of last year. But how do we know that this is actually how many there were? Could've been thousands of seriously secret requests that Google won't even be allowed to report about.

This is where, in my opinion, the whole thing fall apart. The beautiful thing about this sort of product is that it instantly makes the audiences more curious. It's the same reason conspiracy theories are so popular and appealing. You can't help but wonder at the stories behind each request. For all we know it could have just been personal slanders against some government official, or something really fucking banal. But no! If it has the somehow-now-dirty-word of 'government' attached to it, it must be serious and exciting and all James Bond-esque. This tool, whilst a bit of fun, shouldn't be taken as a serious indication of how much different world powers like to censor. The cynic in me would argue that the entire idea of this page is just a useful way for Google to advertise their whole new-media liberal way of life, which is then even more marketable than their actual products. It's like buying coffee because it's Fair Trade. You probably just buy it because, y'know, it's moral and shit. This is just Google shouting about how fucking liberal they are, which is why you should use their definitely-connected search engine, and click on their adverts only, and give them the revenue of your mouse clicks!

To use the advertisement (sorry, tool), click HERE. And yes, I'm aware of the irony of dissing Google on a Google blog. Rant over.

In Defence of: Glee

2010-04-19T19:40:00.007+01:00

I love Glee. It's as simple as that. I thoroughly enjoy it as a piece of television, and on top of that, as a musical. My knowledge of musicals (far from being superior to everyone) is quite high compared to other people like myself (male, twenty-years-old, etc), and, as such, I feel that I can associate Glee well enough to other highly-regarded examples of the musical genre, so much so that I can justify watching it and actively enjoy it. There are some, however, that disagree. Some just shake their heads in disappointment/disbelief/anger/lack of understanding/etc when I tell them it's one of my favourite shows on television at the moment. Some just laugh. Some say it's 'fucking gay' and whilst I know that they don't mean homosexual, they just mean shit, I feel as if the show suffers from misconceptions and unwarranted discrimination. Whilst I'm not saying this is as serious as something like racism, I mean 'discrimination' in a genre definition.

I will come to this later. Firstly, I want to address the charge that Glee is not a 'proper' musical, which then leads it open to criticism. Mostly, I think that people don't think it's a 'proper' musical purely on the basis that it isn't a film or on stage, as if the entire genre of musicals is limited to either medium. If anything, the fact that a season of Glee is heading towards being around twenty episodes long, means that it can cover a much wider set of narratives as well as going into them deeper than an average musical film or theatre. Sometimes it doesn't, but my point is that it has the chance to. Key members of the cast, such as Rachel, Tina, or Mr Schuster, are actual Broadway actors who were picked by the production team after they spent three months watching Broadway shows. So any claim that it's 'cheap' is obviously naive. Moreover, if we look at the genre conventions (hello GCSE media studies) of what constitutes a musical, I think you'll find that Glee fits into this perfectly.

A combination of music, songs, dialogue and dance with the narrative
The four emotions of love, anger, humour and pathos
Set pieces
Original songwriting/cover of popularly-known songs
Basic character formats

In all honestly, there's not alot of conventions for the musical: basically, if it has a narrative, has a mixture of songs and spoken word, and involves the four key emotions of love, anger, humour and pathos, it's a musical. And, you know what's coming now: does Glee involve these?

Simply, yes it does. Obviously it has songs in it, as well as spoken word. All four emotions are heavily involved, and there are covers of popularly-known songs. The character formats are there too! This may seem a little simplistic, but this is because I'm coming to another charge that is often leveled at the programme: that the characters are too simplistic, the morals within the show are just the same, and that emotionally, the characters are very, very linear.

I would argue that these charges only exist because people are comparing the show to other television shows that are extremely serious. Think about it: if someone asked you, publicly, which was better: The Wire or Glee? You would, 99% of the time, state the former. This is because most television shows are different. They are drama productions. Glee is a musical production. An example: critiquing Glee as a televisual drama production is almost like comparing My Fair Lady to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both are excellent productions, the best in their respective fields. But to say that 2001 is better because it's 'more serious' or whatever is both naive, immature, and essentially pointless. You have to watch Glee as a musical, not a drama. Because that's what it is.

Let's get back to those genre conventions. Allow me to warn you...

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

The storylines we see in the first volume of the opening series of Glee (basically, the only ones that have been screened thus far) have been ridiculed as horribly flat, linear, and basic. But this is because it is following traditional conventions. There is the four emotions: love (there are several love stories in the first season, each with a different ending. Some is requited, some isn't, some is secret, and some is ruined. There's even a misdirected pregnancy as well as a fake one), anger (which is mostly used to create problems or the end within the love storylines), humour (created in dialogue or visuals, mostly from the amazing, infuriating, superb Sue Sylvester), and even pathos - the misfortune suffered by both Will Schuster and Finn at the hands of their respective girlfriends. There's even moments of self-aware bathos too, as seen when Rachel puts on a song meant to lure Mr Schuster, only for him to cut it off unexpectadly. We expect a high-end musical number, but the character knows it's wrong.

SPOILERS OVER

Lastly, I want to cover this genre discrimination. I think when people think of the genre of musicals, they either think of Broadway/West End productions, or of older cinema productions. There's a certain feeling of antiquity attached to the way the genre is perceived, and this is why, I think, modern musical productions that adhere to the conventions are deemed 'gay' or narratively poor. The three major modern musical visual productions have been High School Musical, Mamma Mia! and Glee itself. All three of these are immensely popular, yet are given a bad reputation by snooty critics or people that make a lifestyle out of appearing actively not-stupid. If it was not for me coming home to Maidstone when Glee was on the telly, I would probably be one of these people, mindlessly dissing the show because it was stupid and silly and gay, without ever giving the show a proper, undiscriminating viewing. Whilst I'm on the subject, I think that musicals as a genre suffer from being perceived as 'uncool'. This may or may not be because of the attachment of antiquity I referenced earlier, but I also think that people criticise the genre because it a) has singing, and b) is relatively simplistic narratively compared to genres such as comedy or drama.

So, there's my defence. TL;DR: Give Glee a chance.

UPDATE: I just watched the first episode of the second volume (so that's episode 13 of series 1 fyi), and it was all-out fantastic. The moment Sue Sylvester entered the episode there were one-liners thrown about so willy-nilly I reckon they must have used an entire season's worth. Line of the show: "Did you know dolphins are just gay sharks?". There's a good write-up on the Guardian's series blog that explains how hard writing this episode must have been for the writers considering what happened in the previous thirteen episodes. But, overall, one of the best episodes yet. Yes!

Moral Panic, OAP

2010-04-19T19:10:00.002+01:00

Who says moral panics have to be caused by recent media productions? Forget Kick Ass, what's really getting the Daily Mail riled up these days is a thirty-nine year-old Kubrick film. Click here to see the whole absurd link in its glory...

Whilst you're on the Mail's website, you might want to have a flick around some other stories on the right-hand 'Today's Headlines' sidebar. There's one that explains the racial background of Nick Clegg (for some reason), a story about an asylum seeker stabbing a nurse 130 times (literally, you couldn't make up the character profiling if you tried), one about a foreign paedophile who's won the right to stay in the UK, one about a mother who died after being raped by a POLISH MAN, and the story on the two lesbians who have both signed the birth certificate of a child (the Mail has capitalised 'both', FYI)

Hot Air

2010-04-19T16:13:00.003+01:00

The above pun linking the upcoming election with the current volcanic ash situation has perhaps already been overdone by existing media outlets, but believe me I'm not above making such obvious puns. The timing of the volcanic eruption alongside the televised leaders' debate was too good to be true for newspapers such as The Sun, or any tabloid (oh, who am I kidding? ALL media outlets wanted to make some sort of clever connection). And I'm exactly the same.

I didn't watch the debate. Did you? I couldn't, I was in a house with no license. Apparently 9 million did, which was possibly the best day for ITV in living memory, but then Britain's Got Talent came along and got 10 million. I don't think there's a correlation between the fact that both shows featured nervous contestants performing in front of a studio audience? Maybe the button premise from BGT should be incorporated into the debates in future? Just for, you know, entertainment.

On a serious note, the debate and Clegg's performance has shown the amazing ability of television to create bandwagons, whether they be positive or negative. You thought I was going to say something sincere or vaguely profound like 'the amazing ability to change the political landscape', didn't you? Well, nope. Although I am supportive of the Lib Dems and I'm happy that we're getting increased media attention, thus meaning an increase at the polls, I can't help but feel pessimistic. The whole sudden furore over Clegg seems not too dissimilar to a celebrity being put on a pedestal. And we all know what happens to them, don't we? PS: I don't care if you join a group arguing for 'Nick Clegg for PM!'. I know you only knew his name from the debate. Some people, I reckon, only knew his name from the reporting of the debate and didn't even watch it. It works both ways. I like Clegg, and the Lib Dems. But I'm not blind to their faults. Neither should you be.

The whole panic over a load of hot air (here comes the pun, again) recently spread to some sort of environmental event last week, resulting in blue skies, a reduction in noise pollution, no great big white lines ruining the sky lines, and some of the most polluting machines in the world being grounded indefinitely, resulting in a fuckload of saved carbon and thereby saving the planet that little bit longer. An environmenal event with positive results, you say?

However, if you followed the media's view, there was none of it! All the volcano seemed to do was make middle-class nucelar families quite unhappy. A week being stranded at a major airport? Abroad? Where you've just been on holiday? And there's no way of getting back, thus giving you ample room to miss work/school? And you're still there? In the (presumed) sunshine? Why the fuck are you complaining to Sky News? GO BACK ON HOLIDAY.

This whole affair is quite similar to the snow situation last winter. Instead of getting out in the snow like the rest of the nation, journalists up and down the country were lamenting the losses to businesses. Would these be the same businesses that claim huge bonuses? Oh, it would. Sorry, I get quite confused. One minute I'm being told to hate big business, the next I'm told to pity it and blame frozen rain. Fuck off, media.

Adwipe

2010-04-17T20:38:00.001+01:00

Gem of an advert from Stella Artois.

Un, deux, trois, quatre!

Spotlight: Radio

2010-04-13T18:13:00.005+01:00

I don't listen to the radio. There are those on my course, most of whom who have chosen the radio specialisation for the practical module, who are absolutely obsessed with the medium. But for me, the passion isn't there. My experience of radio stations on a regular basis is limited to BBC Radio 1 if I am home at New Cross (because there's no digital), BBC Radio 2 if my mum's listening to it, BBC 5Live when I'm in the car with my grandad, and Capital Radio whenever I'm at my house in New Cross as Rose seems to blare it out at every available opportunity.

None of these are situations in which I am regularly listening in regular, similar times of the day, so I miss out on the narratives these shows and stations provide: references, gameshows, ongoing debates, current playlists, etc. From what I can tell, however, no publicly-funded (i.e. BBC) station provides a music playlist that appeals to me. Radio 1 is extremely similar to Capital Radio, and the two stations only really differ in a) the amount of advertising and b) how quickly the songs on the playlists fall off the playlists (Radio 1 removes them quicker. Capital Radio is still playing La Roux at every opportunity). It is true that Radio 1 provides for an alternative music scene, whether it be guitar or electronic music, yet this is still fundamentally populist - and by this I mean mainstream guitar and electronic music. Radio 2 is good, but tends to be off my radar as they don't appeal to my age and social groupings, and I would not expect them to. 5Live is good, but this is purely talk. It also has good sports coverage. Don't even get me started on Capital.

You will all be aware of the extremely controversial planned closure of BBC 6Music. When it was originally announced, I was understanding: I had not listened to 6Music, and I figured that an increase in un-broadcasted music streaming services (Spotify, Grooveshark, etc.) would make the station eventually pointless anyway. But then I came home for Easter, and I've ended up having the ability to use digital radios both at my family home and my grandparents'. I wouldn't be a media student if I didn't then use these pieces of equipment for some holiday work, and so I decided to take a trip down digital. I started, obviously, with 6Music.

It is an excellent station. I was pleasantly surprised. It plays an intriguing mix of up-and-coming alternative tracks, all from different sub-movements currently becoming popular, with some older music from the 60s-90s thrown in regularly. It is not uncommon for you to hear two completely different tracks next door to each other. Hence, I heard Paranoid by Sabbath, closely followed by Soul Meets Body by Death Cab. The DJs are usually entertaining and not so constricted by station policy and/or playlists, either. Lauren Laverne is wicked.

This then poses the question: if and when 6Music closes, where do listeners go to for alternatively-based music? I listened to some proposed alternatives, and this is what I found:

XFM: Imagine the mid-ground between 6Music and Radio 1. Alternative music, but all chart music nonetheless. Arctic Monkeys, Killers, etc. I was bombarded with ads too. On top of this, the DJs and station itself self-advertise constantly with commercial competitions and the like. Poor showing generally.

Absolute Radio: Less commercial than XFM, yet still commercial. However, it doesn't take prime place, as I sometimes feel it does with XFM and Capital. Mostly older tracks, almost like the old music 6Music plays, but all the time, as such, I found myself either LOVING or absolutely DESPISING the tracks that it played. Like a younger, edgier Radio 2. Lack of newer music though, so a little linear. Good showing, though.

Planet Rock: Still, a commercial channel, but not too much, just like Absolute. This radio station must be a dream if you like every strain of rock minus any sort of indie. Not my thing, but I can appriciate its appeal.

Kerrang!: Like eating too many hard sweets that break your teeth. Capital's rockier brother, both in choice of mainstream rockpop, and like being hit around the head with a plank of wood in terms of DJ, advertising, and general station noise.

NME Radio: I didn't even give this station a go. Call me unfair, but if it's anything like NME TV I saved myself some anguish.

Conclusions? Absolute Radio and Planet Rock are good, but I really don't enjoy listening to commercial radio: if adverts were inavoidable, I would rather listen to Spotify. At least then I would be listening to what I want, and there would be less adverts. Radio broadcasting is definitely going to suffer with the lack of 6Music, but you knew that anyway.

Shit, Mundane, Agonising

2010-04-12T20:48:00.004+01:00

Awful, awful, AWFUL blog post title, but I couldn't think of anything better. This is because since coming home I have had the misfortune to continually witness the the absurdity that is BBC3's Snog Marry Avoid? (my mum's viewing choice, not mine). It's been going for a while now but for the lucky few of you that have somehow managed to not witness it first hand/hear about it, I'm about to inform you (look at me being socially responsible).

Essentially, every episode Jenny Frost, one of those presenters who consistently looks and hears as if she is about to scream in a really high-pitched voice when she sees some shoes, manages to find people who are (and here I quote Wikipedia's own quotations) 'fakery obsessed' (basically = people who take niche fashion trends to their extreme), sticks them in a completely white area in front of a bastardised HAL9000 called 'POD' (yeah it stands for Personal Overhaul Device, I couldn't make it up if I tried) who then gives the subjects/victims some verbal abuse about their appearance before playing to the subjects what people 'on da street' think about them - if they would 'marry' them, 'snog' them, or 'avoid' them. I'm going to skip the basic errors and flaws in this list of choices given to the poor fools on the street who've been stopped by BBC3 interns because it would be pedantic of me, and there are a thousand more things that are wrong with the very concept of this show that I could talk about. Anyway, I digress. After this (when the usual majority view has been 'avoid' (thus giving the show moral backbone, 'cos if the public think it, it MUST BE RIGHT), POD then gives the subjects a (and this is the selling point) 'make-under', essentially taking away all of their existing make-up and clothing and re-doing it all, except with 'invisible' makeup styling and mainstream-y clothes. At this point, the subjects laugh in shock at their new identity!!! And then see the errors of their ways. Good for them!

There's not really much I really need to deconstruct here. I'm sure most of you who read this are capable of seeing the obvious flaws and problems with this show, mainly coming from the fact that a) it's a beauty/fashion makeover show to begin with, b) it uses public (and emphasis on 'public' there) humiliation to justify its narratives. At this point the reasons for my distaste with this programming relate to the fact that the show almost, to me, seems to be creating a faked sense of counter-culture mentality only to turn the subjects into hegemonised, mainstream fashion followers.

Think of the show's logic: these people are using 'too much' make-up and fashion components. Because of this, their appearance is harming them. Look at our culture! Look at what it's done to these people! We must help them!

How does the show 'help' them? Well, firstly it does the show's 'make-under', a cynically named tool to make the show seem more 'edgy' and 'counter-culture' because it specifically names its technique in binary opposition to the regular term of make-over. This then positions the show in line with a feeling of unconventionality, which no doubt appeals to the image that BBC3 is trying to garner itself, when you now see messages like 'NOT AFRAID TO ASK' posted across most of their advertising. And what this show is trying to do; what it's essential aim is; is to make you think that it is NOT like the whole plethora of beauty/fashion makeover shows that are also around. It is trying to make itself seem caring and defending for the underdog, for people that need helping. And in this way, it has carved itself a market share of the audience when in reality it is exactly the same (if not worse) than existing shows. If you were to watch an example of a make-under you will agree with me. Most, if not all, of the subjects that go under the make-under, are happy with their appearance. Quite a few goths feature. Little-to-none of the subjects are unhappy in any way whatsoever: they are normal, coherent members of our society that simply choose to dress differently. Most have the lifestyle to boot. Yet, when they are put up in front of POD, POD (who has a woman's voice) rips into them, telling them that they don't 'need' to wear what they're wearing, that they look 'weird', and then gets video clips of usually the blandest-dressed people around telling them that they would avoid them. Half the time I reckon that the subject would be quite happy with that particular critic avoiding them as they have no social connection between them. Yet, POD persists. They get rid of their chosen appearance and give them the famed 'make-under'. This usually results in them looking like they've bought every single facet of their appearance, clothing and make-up combined, in a boring British high street. Congratulations! You're Liberated, Fellow Fashonista!

Seriously, I'm getting a little bit bored of writing this post because of how obvious I feel the problems are in it. Anything that makes me actively miss the days of Trinny and Susannah (and God I HATED that era more than anything) has to be doing something ridiculously wrong. Snog Marry Avoid? is most probably on iPlayer now, I recommend you watch it for yourselves.

Cover me in power chords

2010-04-10T20:05:00.003+01:00

I like a disgusting amount of the pop released these days. But thankfully for my pride, there are some covers of pop songs going down on YouTube, both good and bad (but mostly bad). Every single band presented here has a band name that sounds like it should be satire.

First up is a video shown to me by my friend Parkes. It's done by Life on Repeat, here you go:

Next, a cover by The Promise Estate:

More Swift-based emo glory, this time from Forever The Sickest Kids:

Swing The Coast's cover:

And possibly the most audacious, as done by A Smile From the Trenches:

I blame Wednesday night's Fat Lip for this nonsense.

Raise the Flag

2010-04-07T11:48:00.003+01:00

Murdoch has once again made an audacious claim to the possession of news content, claiming that he is going to stop Google from taking 'our' (by which I mean 'his') news content. In an interview he claimed that the iPad will save newsprint journalism in the digital age, and that Google steal news by aggregating content. Sorry, Rupert, but since when did individuals possess ownership rights on saying what has happened around the world? Shit's like owning time, absurd.

Report of the interview can be found on the Guardian website by clicking here.

In other news...I've come back to Maidstone for Easter. I went to Source last night, it was sorta like an endurance for about a couple of hours. It hasn't been open for about eight months and...it hasn't changed. Good to see some people, but the clientele is slowly destroying itself and at times I just felt uncomfortable. Tonight I should be going to FAT LIP at RBar for my friends' evening of pop-punk/emo/ska/etc, I am looking forward to it. Event details can be found here. Mostly though I just sit at home on my laptop relentlessly pressing 'Home' on Facebook.

Refurbishing Web 2.0

2010-04-02T16:29:00.007+01:00

All of sudden, major internet websites are refurbishing their websites. In most, if not all, cases, the redesigns are a reaction (perhaps long overdue) to the increasing presence of Web 2.0. Last week, the Guardian refurbished their website, turning the homepage into a mixture of user-based ranking with journalistic methods, whilst removing the segregation of stories by topic. Ergo, you have the News/Sport/Technology/Media/Politics/etc. headings at the top of the page, yet within the homepage, stories appear regardless of their type, and rather, how read and/or commented upon they are, and they are tagged with certain colours to highlight their catergorisation. Similar to the near-ubiquitous Twitter, stories are now 'trended', basically, the website has a section highlighting to visitors which stories, reports, blogs and comment articules are popular by listing the theme they are referring to: instead of 'most read' individual pages, it now lists 'trending' topics, for example mephedrone, Election 2010, Champions League, paywall, etc. etc. etc. There are various other new and altered elements, so check out the Guardian's own explanation of the changes by clicking here.

YouTube have also unveiled a changed video viewing page. Things have been moved around, and the most important reason I can immediately work out is that it reduces clutter as well as making it easier to switch from video to video, either between one user's videos, or similar ones to the one being watched. Amongst other things, the side-panel linking to other videos has been altered, as well as the description panel, and the comments section has been altered to show both the most recent as well as the most popular/controversial, once again linking the viewing experience back to how the individual user sees fit. YouTube also have an in-depth self-explanation page, so click here for some clarification and reasoning from them.

The Times' controversial paywall introduction is being launched alongside a proposed website overhaul, and pretty much the only reason for this is so that the website seems better; basically to make people want to pay for the product. Who knows? If there is a distinct lack of advertising and the website becomes anything like the Guardian's I may even pay for it, God forbid. Google 'The Times' for a taster of how they're making it look more modern, streamlined, and professional (the current TimesOnline website leaves a lot to be desired). Wikipedia are also planning changes, to both the overall presentation of their website as well as the editorial processes. Check out the Wikimedia blog for more explanation, but once again the key words seem to be 'simplified', 'clutter', and 'user'.

Finally, but by no means lastly, SE London and New Cross creatives Clinic have recently redesigned their homepage. The site is now catergorised into the various art and media forms that they work within, as well as increasing the amount of follow-through links both to other collectives they work with as well as their other outlets upon the web, mostly social networking ones, thus linking the audience participation with the need to gain audiences at their RL events. The website can be found at www.clinicpresents.com.

The seemingly sudden switch by some of the internet's biggest sites can be down to one thing and one thing alone: Web 2.0. Although saying this, I would say that some sort of modernist aesthetic is gaining popularity, and the two themes are joined at the hip. Reducing clutter and clarifying the essential uses of the page both makes it easier for users to navigate, thus meaning audiences are more likely to use the page (a recent Independent article highlighted how the fact that Internet Explorer's clumsiness contributed to users' switching browsers), but by minimalising your website's design, it links the website theoretically to a whole school of thought with links in 21st Century modernist design, of which the very internet itself as a philosophy is intrinsically a part. Ergo: modern-looking websites are then seen as modern in regards to their content, thus increasing the reputation of the website, thus bringing in more users, and thus bringing in all the benefits that more audience members leads to.

Inexplicable

2010-04-01T18:04:00.002+01:00

And so, finally, yesterday's match between Arsenal and Barcelona arrived.

I was there, and I have never, in about ten and a half years of regularly attending nearly every home Arsenal match, been so excited pre-kickoff. It was possibly the best atmosphere I have experienced at our relatively new corporate home, and I think every supporter was deliberately adding to it. We had been pretty much written off (with some notable 'not neccessarily' articles here and there) before the game, and within five minutes i agreed.

Barcelona, in the first 60 minutes of the match, were simply unplayable. Their coach, Pep Guardiola, had claimed a fortnight ago that he'd run out of language to describe the playing of Lionel Messi, and I found that it's applicable to their entire team. Messi was relatively quiet, actually, but I found that to be more because their WHOLE team was fantastic rather than because he had an off-day. They always had an extra man in space on the pitch, and it was simply impossible for our defenders to cover the space, meaning that within half an hour Barcelona had created five/six/seven clear goalscoring opportunities, that, were it not for Manuel Almunia having the game of his career, and the wastefullness of Ibrahimovic, would have resulted in us being about four goals down before the first quarter of the match was over.

Somehow, we got to halftime without conceding. But within a minute we had, and Ibrahimovic soon doubled his tally at around the 60th minute. At this point I had actually claimed that I would've 'accepted 2-0', which shows how dead our chances seemed to be. But somehow, and (I still DON'T know how we did it), we scored. Twice! Against Barcelona! And they're missing their two central defenders for the next leg! Christ, I almost feel hopeful. If (and this is a huge, unfathomably conditional IF) we managed, somehow, to end up winning the tie after playing them at the Nou Camp, it would possibly be the biggest footballing injustice since Eduardo got off the charge of diving at the beginning of the season. They 100% deserve to beat us and go through. But, I'll be hopeful.

For an excellent article on the match, click here. It says what I can't be bothered to type.

Moral Panic: B+

2010-03-29T18:15:00.002+01:00

News has broken today that mephedrone will indeed (probably) be classified as Class B. I don't partiuclarly like mephedrone, and neither do I have any real opinion on whether or not it should be classified/illegalised. I don't know enough about the chemical makeup of drugs, nor would I claim to do so. However, it's interesting to hear news' take on the issue. In particular, how they phrase things so they sound like they're saying something different, and more often than not, what it sounds like they're saying is easily more terrifying than what they actually are saying.

Key examples (which I'm trying to remember from the BBC News report ten minutes ago):
'...it [mephedrone] has links to the deaths of twenty-five people'
'young people are assuming that 'legal' can be equated be 'safe''

Yes, it has links to the deaths of twenty-five people, more often than not, because they took it the night they died. I think it is fair to now list activities we can safely assume they took part in, also on the night they died:
Breathing
Talking
Eating
Drinking alcohol
Other, already illegalised drugs

I don't think this is pedantic of me. Much. But I've made my point. It may eventually be clinically proven that at least one of these people died as a direct result of taking the substance, but (correct me if I'm wrong, internet) I don't think this has happened yet. It may do, because drugs do indeed kill a minority of the users (just like ANY commonly done activity), but the whole damn fiasco just smacks of the media not having anything else to complain about, having successfully ruined the internet (if there's one link you're EVER going to follow if you even read these ramblings, that should be it [also, appropriate that I used Wikipedia as this resource? Perhaps]).

Apparently young people up and down the country are assuming that 'legal' equates to 'safe', according to BBC News. Would I then be correct in pointing out that illegal equates to dangerous? Maybe I should then just join the fucking army now, eh?

On Messi

2010-03-28T16:50:00.003+01:00

I haven't talked about football in a while, which is odd considering the current state of the football season. If you're in the dark, let me educate you: the Premiership title race is the most exciting in years, involving Manchester Utd, Chelsea, and (for once, thank fuck) Arsenal, who were written off two months ago following defeats to the two former sides. We (Arsenal) drew yesterday when the other two both won, so it's a bit depressing at the moment, but the glory of this season is that no-one knows what's going to happen. There's also a race for the prestigious fourth-placed spot between a faltering Liverpool, monied-up Manchester City, a rampant Tottenham, and a now-fading Aston Villa. There's also a tight relegation battle kicking in.

I don't want to talk about domestic matters, however. If you have any interest in sporting news you will be aware that for the last-eight round of the perpetual gravy train that is the UEFA Champions' League, Arsenal have been drawn against the seemingly unstoppable Barcelona.

If you have any interest in football whatsoever, this is possibly the best result for everyone involved. Barcelona play the best football, ever, a glorious mix of fast passing and beautiful attacking moves, that meant that they won every trophy they were involved with last season (five, I think). Arsenal are considered to play the second-best football, and although our team is quite a way off the complete model, it is a commonly held opinion that if you want to watch beautiful, quick, passing football (not unlike 'Total Football' espoused by Cryuff decades ago), you go and watch Arsenal.

A couple of years ago the two teams played in the CL final, and it was expected to be the best game of football played in years. However, an Arsenal sending off resulting in the scrapping of tactics and a dour match played out in the Paris rain (which I was at, luckily enough, and which Arsenal lost due to two late Barca goals). But now, there are going to be not only one, but TWO games (two legs, yeah). And, next Wednesday, Barcelona will visit North London.

This is all a precursor to what (or, rather, whom) I want to talk about. Barcelona are a good team, most probably the best, but what really, unquestionably sets them apart is the unbelievable talent of a certain Lionel Messi. He was the catalyst for last season's success, and is considered by all to be the best football player in the world right now; possibly ever. I am inclined to agree. A simple YouTube search will reveal his talents to you. Last week Barcelona played Zaragoza, in which he scored a hat-trick. And last week, he did the same thing against Valencia. He won a penalty post-Zaragoza hat-trick, and gave it to someone else to score. Before this penalty, Lionel Messi had single-handedly scored Barcelona's last nine goals. He's scored about 30-something this season already. Read this article for the full mindblowingness of his ability, it's chock full of YouTube links I am too lazy to retrieve for you.

Anyway, come Wednesday, Barcelona play Arsenal at Emirates Stadium. And Lionel Messi will play, and probably rip to shreds whichever players have the misfortune of being picked to play. And, glory of luck, I have a ticket for the match. I am absolutely terrified of what is going to happen in those 90 minutes, but I feel lucky that a) I get to see Lionel Messi play (this is one of those things that you tell people about when you're an OAP), and even better, b) he's going to play on the right flank, which means that for 45 minutes (either first or second half), he will be playing right in front of me, in the corner in which I sit. Get in. I almost don't care if we lose, as long as he plays well. Any player which makes you forget club allegiance must be celebrated.

Turbane, Inane

2010-03-27T13:46:00.003Z

Facebook has, in recent years, slowly been inundated with elements of teenage melodrama and social trending more similarly associated with the now-prehistoric MySpace. You know the type of stuff I'm referring to: pointless quizzes (of which I was guilty when I was a 'MySpacer'), photo albums constructed entirely of the same angle of the same three people in one nightclub, almost childish applications filled with cuddly bears, bright colours, and some sort of emotion mixed with secrecy ('Who secretly likes you? Find out here!' and 'Tell me what you think of me anonymously!' are prime examples). These are all perfectly annoying in their own way, but quite recently, Facebook has been absolutely diluted by people either joining groups or becoming a 'fan' of small, inane human emotions. They usually take one of two forms: some sort of 'bleeding heart' 'my relationship is torrid' statement, or little tenets of a modern, twenty-first century technologically advanced lifestyle, more commonly known as 'that thing where...'. Here is a list of prime examples. See if you can tell which group the statement belongs to:

Become a fan!:
'I met you. I liked you. I got to know you. You're such a dick.'
'Soon As You Type 'K' I Know I've Done Something Wrong'
'Flipping My Pillow Over to the Cold Side'
'behind every untrusting girl is a boy who made her that way'
'arguments mean nothing....at the end of the day i still love you'
'lookin at your friend when you see someone fit, and they just know'
'You're not sorry you did it. You're sorry I found out'
'That dance you do when you're putting on skinny jeans'

I'm not going to copy anymore because it's a waste of my time and it was starting to get on my nerves. But, you get my drift. And, although I don't understand the obsession with joining these groups (why would you be a fan of something that either makes you depressed (relationship trouble) or pisses you off just that little bit (struggling to put on tight jeans)?), I can almost understand why it is done. If thousands of people join these groups, it does give the individual a sense of community and shared experience, something which is arguably affected by the fact that Facebook is communicating via text and not one-to-one socialisation. Ergo, it's sorta okay. If they could just block the Fan application from the News Feed it'd be alright.

But I've noticed a new trend. For some reason, people are joining groups or becoming fans of pages that are based on puns regarding turbans. Yes, you read correctly. Turbans. Why?! Usually it's quite easy to work out where specific puns come from, such as other forms of media i.e. television (yeah, I'm looking at you, Inbetweeners and Skins). Why is it suddenly funny to make puns out of turbans? The weirdest ones are ones that involve a simple social situation, and include the turban for absolutely no apparent reason apart from the fact, that, y'know, turbans are WELL FUNNY. It's a different culture, therefore, it is hilarious to mix the two together. I'm just a little bit dumbfounded. Was there a television show that I missed that the entire nation bonded over? A song, perhaps? I just can't tell where it's come from. I know it's not racist, or xenophobic, but WHERE HAS THIS COME FROM? A good friend of mine recently commented on The Hurt Locker's recent BAFTA success that 'I almost don't like talking about it', and I feel pretty much the same way. It's just...weird. Here, see for yourself (I've tried to include links so you can investigate for yourselves...)

'LSMMTUAFIMC = Laughing so much my turban unravels and falls in my curry.'
'Turban Outfitters'
'Without my turban, I am nothing.'
'That feeling when you take your turban off after a long day.'

If you go on any of these pages, there's whole lists of other variants on the turban-in-modern-life pun. Now, I think it's fair to say that most of the people who join these pages are not regular turban wearers, and so the argument over 'shared experience' is null. Then why are these people doing it? They're not all BNP members (I think). All it leaves us with is 'turbans are funny because they're a bit weird'. Yeah? No? I just don't know.

There's a whole load of other really fucking weird trends on Facebook, all of which bring the website down just that little bit more. You can spot them for yourselves. Any more that people have noticed? I wish to hear about them, sorta.

push my panic buttons

2010-03-18T15:04:00.007Z

A couple of years ago, at secondary school, I encountered the odd phenomenon of what is known by most as the 'moral panic'. An odd, somewhat alarmist creature, the moral panic has the ability to make certified journalists and middle-class middle-England housewives and 'men on the street' to turn into hysterical, ranting zealots.

It often happens when nothing else newsworthy is, and more often than not, either revolves around 'yoof' culture or the apparition of a 'danger' that is threatening children. The most famous of this is the Jamie Bulger case. Obviously, the murder was a horrific, upsetting story, but the news media insisted on scaring the hell out of every single parent of a young child that they were either one of the following: either demented killers straight out of The Omen or that they were at risk of being murdered by the aforementioned demon children. Recently, this moral panic made a Britney Spears-esque comeback, in the news that one of the child murderers had committed another crime. Promptly, the gutter (sorry, 'red top') press demanded to know what he had done, and effectively spent two weeks screaming to anyone who would read that they had 'told you so'. I don't know whether it is the Bulger re-emergence that has caused it, but for some reason, the media are re-inventing older moral panics for a new generation (and hey, even for the people who were around for the original ones, just in case, you know, that they had forgotten).

There are two panics currently doing the rounds, particularly in the pages of The Sun. Firstly, there's a lot of press attention given to the news story concerning the murder of a young girl by a paedophile, who groomed her using Facebook. Today the news has broken that Facebook have (almost predictably so) given into perceived public outrage and announced that they would have 'no objections' to introducing a 'panic button' onto the site.

This panic is nothing new.

The government ran an awareness campaign in the mid-2000s. There's a whole plethora of these adverts, either British or American, on YouTube.

Obviously I am not saying that the girl who was murdered was stupid, or that she deserved to die. But everyone knows how many people are on Facebook. Anyone who thinks that criminals and disturbed people simply don't use Facebook is horrendously naive, but by the same token, anyone who thinks that they are the majority on social websites is possibly even more naive in a completely different manner. Maybe parents should possibly be more pro-active and take the time to warn children anyway, before they claim that the website itself is guilty. If someone gets hold of a gun illegally, and kills another, who do you blame? The gun, or the murderer? All I'm saying is that you don't see our prisons full of inanimate firearms. If a paedophile wanted to go out and commit a crime, he would do so whether or not Facebook was there. It just doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever.

There are specific reasons why the newspaper is propagating this fear. Firstly, newspapers will say absolutely ANYTHING if it sells one more copy, and fear sells more than a happy, uplifting stories. If you see a joyous headline, it's more likely to cheer you up from the off, and you don't feel the compulsion to read more. But when something bad happens, that ol' curiosity kicks in, and you can't help but read every depressing word. Secondly, the internet is seriously infringing on newspapers' profit margins. Anything that takes audiences away from the internet, and a strong internet brand at that, is healthy for business. Thirdly, it's because it involes a minor. The image of children put forward by the press is one of innocent, happy, immature, naive golden children, not befouled by drugs, sex, or any one of the 'vices' the Mail seems happy to talk about. In other words, they are the perfect people to be corrupted. This corruption can be violent, sexual, or anything decreed as 'adult'. You know the line: 'Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?'.

The second panic is that of mephedrone. The Sun started running this story only two days ago, and both front pages yesterday and today have been about the drug. Today's headline was 'PLEASE SIR, GIVE ME MY MEOW MEOW BACK'. I'll let that fester for a while. I'm not sure whether the 'paper is specifically trying to make it seem more tragic by making the schoolchildren in question sound like cats (or maybe it's designed to make them sound like the child in Oliver!), but it took me a while to fully take it in. Basically, two kids somewhere in the North managed to inadvertently get themselves dead in the same evening that they happened to take an unspecified amount of mephedrone (sorry, MEOW MEOW). I don't think there's a direct medical link that has been proven (although it is conceivable it played a part in making their bodies shut down), and neither has any sort of amount been specified. This is so your mind will now make the connection: any amount of mephedone whatsoever = possible death. And it seems scarier because it's a drug. But if you think about it, you could say that about absolutely anything whatsoever. To highlight:

Crossing a road = possible death
Eating a meal = possible death
Walking down the street = possible death
Using an electrical appliance = possible death
Sleeping = possible death

Need I go on? It's irrational, stupid, and really fucking effective when you consider that most people who read this type of newspaper are perfectly happy to paraphrase 'working man' Sun rhetoric as their own views.

Once again, this panic has already been 'round the block once or twice. If you did science at secondary school in the UK you will be familiar a video about the case of Leah Betts, a girl who died in 1995 on her 18th birthday because she had drunk too much water after taking a single ecstasy tablet. The news promptly went into hysterical mode and created a moral panic based on the fact that a) she was middle class b) it was allegedly the only time she'd taken it (a poster claiming that 'just one ecstasy tablet took Leah Betts' was created and distributed), a fact which was later proven to be false, and most importantly, c) the fact that Leah had apparently followed common advice to drink water when she was on it. It made the drug seem entirely unsafe and dangerous, but then it emerged that she had actually taken it before (so not so innocent, eh) and had actually died of water intoxication. Water killed her, not ecstasy. But we still drink water, quite safely so.

It has seemed for a while that Islamic extremism was enough to keep the gutter press busy, but instead, they are rehashing stories that have been made up before, and already consequently disproven. But people have short memories, it would seem. More on THE PERILS OF MEOW MEOW soon, but I have for you some shocking news. Stories are emerging of a dangerous new trend amongst previously upstanding citizens of the UK. Apparently, sufferers are being taken delirious and hysterical due to a psychological danger lurking in every facet of our previously upstanding society. It's being reported as hiding, undetected, in newsagents, informational websites, and even in our own televisions. Scientists are unsure of how the danger fully works, but all they are entirely sure of is that is preys upon our most illogical fears, sometimes for monetary gain.

Get what I'm talking about, yet?

PS If you skipped this because it's 'too long', I've decided to be considerate. Watch this clip instead:

update

2010-03-12T20:21:00.002Z

some more posts coming up soon, but i'm too busy at the moment to really blog. my to-do list includes: creating three full illustrations for the twelve caesars by suetonius as part of my goldsmiths illustration course, writing a three-thousand word portfolio (made up of six five-hundred word mini-essays), writing a complete comprehensive CV as well as updating my online presence (which has fallen behind due to our lack thereof) in order to send it off to a media analysis company, hopefully to get on their work experience scheme. in three weeks most of these except one shall be completed (fingers crossed) and i can resume arguably pointless media observation.

PS so stoked that THE DUDE HIMSELF won best actor at the oscars. in watching his acceptance speech, i realised that when he starred in the big lebowski he wasn't actually acting all that much

so, i guess the means that the bums didn't lose, eh?

Guilty as charged

2010-02-19T22:18:00.003Z

On Danish VH1 this week I saw the video (and heard the song) Fireflies by some guy called Owl City for the first time. On a side note, hanging out with my 16-year-old brother (don't worry, he's more mature than I seem to suggest, maybe more mature than me) makes me feel very, very old in regards to the fact that even though he himself isn't a fan of the latest emopop and 'indie' songs hitting the charts, he is invariably surrounded by it because of his peers in his social groups. Anyway, apparently this song is HUGE, like monumentally huge. Billboard US #1? Three-week long stint as UK #1?! I know I don't have a constant internet connection but Jesus, I had no idea I was so 'off the pace' of the chart (disclaimer: this isn't a 'look at how counter-culture I am' claim in disguise - if anything, I feel embarrassed that I don't know what's going on in the media). Anyway, I can't help but really secretly like it. If you know your Death Cab/Postal Service/Ben Gibbard, you'll know that weird thing that his voice does every so often, a sort of mid-tone gurgle that makes his voice seem flat yet in tune, a lower key than usual. I fucking LOVE it when it happens, and the fact that this guy does the same thing, as well as writing in an exactly similar lyrical style as Gibbard, as well as actually sounding like him (cynics: ripping him off?) just gets me. I think the fact that I don't know the social stigma attached to the song (i.e. 'it's popular therefore it's shit') means I don't have any problem liking it. Anyway, here's the video and song for your information, if you're anything like me and trapped in some sort of hellish dubstep SE London student bubble...

Like I said, reminds me of The Postal Service. Mixed with PlayRadioPlay! (who I am now listening to nostalgically due to this song).

On the subject of guilty pleasures, I have a MASSIVE secret like for Taylor Swift. Something about her easy-to-listen pop-country'n'western suckers me in, as well as that weird half-attractive, half-vulnerable thing she's got going on. Kanye West's interruption made her at least three times more attractive/cute, mainly because she just stood there looking hurt and confused. She fucking OWNS in the whole 'awwwwh' stakes. You go, Taylor!

Whisper it quietly or shout it loud, but this isn't an award-winning worthy music video. Certainly not the mundane Beyoncé (yeah, I just called her mundane. I stand by it), but Swift shouldn't have won. Shhhhh

E-mail networking

2010-02-19T11:27:00.003Z

Hello, I'm back from Copenhagen. It was awesome, but I'm not going to post on it until after I've got the roll of film I took with me developed (judging by previous visits and events, this may mean I never post on it). But before this! Controversy is afoot in the new media world...

Google recently introduced Google Buzz, a social networking site that is directly incorporated into your existing Googlemail account, that's designed to work with other Google-owned sites such as Flickr, Youtube, Blogger, etc. Cosmetically the site works well: all your Google-based uploaded media is drawn into one page so that it's easier for your contacts to see what you're uploading (this idea of all the media for one person or theme is quickly becoming a Google-centric idea - it is also the backbone of Google's 'Living Stories' experient). This being Google, it works well, and it also looks good aesthetically.

This is a side note, however, when you realise the huge, huge assumption Google have made. Google are generally the first defenders of the internet and its potential, and they are extremely optimistic in regards to what they think the internet is capable of in a political, economical, social, and cultural sense. And this optimism has apparently caused them huge problems.

Google's problems arises out of the fact that they have intrinsicly linked Buzz to Gmail: that they have created a social networking site out of an e-mailing service. This, I would argue, is where Google's assumptions about the internet cause them some problems. On sites such as Facebook you actively have to sign up for the service and then you can only really communicate (or let them view your personal information) if you 'friend' them, a move which basically means that the users have sovreign power to decide who is in their online lives. You can say what you want about controversial pictures of you being uploaded, but in this case you can de-tag yourself, ask your 'friend' (and if they took a picture of you it would seem to suggest you are friends enough to ask for it to be taken down) to get rid of it, and if neither of these are true and a random person uploads your picture, you can use UK legislation to back you up. Generally, Facebook has made the user lord and master of his own online image, which is why none of the privacy arguments levelled at Facebook have ever really stuck. Google, however, have fucked up in two major ways.

Firstly, Google built their social networking site out of their e-mailing service, which I would argue is a bad move. Social networking and personal e-mailing, however similar in that it is simply two people communicating with each other, are still different enough to distinguish between the two. I would argue, in our age-specific and cultural context, that e-mailing, for the most part, is a service for more profesional dealings (employment, personal business, more formal social relationships, etc) whilst social networking largely reflects your day-to-day social environment, which is a little more less formal and light-hearted. If we argue that most conversations on Gmail are this more professional and formal style, then a social network built out of this doesn't really seem 'proper' and also leads to Google's second mistaken assumption.

This second assumption is that all dealings on social relationships on the internet are positive. This is an assumption that grows specifically out of Google's overly optimistic view of the internet; that the internet is a place where you only deal with the people you are in a positive social relationship with. This, of course, is a ridiculous assumption, and is even more ridiculous when you consider that this is Google, the internet brand, who are (and SHOULD be) aware of the fact that the internet more than anything is just an extension of our offline lives, and so is always going to have negative parts, just as much as positives. This is a potent mistake when combined with the fact that Buzz is built out of a e-mailing service: you communicate with people you are not friends with (ex-partners, enemies, and also secret sources - especially if you're an investigative journalist or having an affair). Because Buzz automatically added the people you communicated with the most and not who you chose yourself, what has happened is that people you don't want to be able to see who else you're communicating with can now do exactly that. Seriously bad move on Google's behalf. Think of the situation. You are having an affair/arguing with an ex-partner/communicating with an important secret news source via e-mail, where no-one else can see what you're writing. Then, Google come along with Buzz and effectively copy in everyone else you've ever spoken to with that same e-mail address, without ever consulting you, including possibly your current partner or people who don't want you communicating with secret news sources. It's like Cc-ing EVERYONE at once, regardless of how private the conversation needs to be. Obviously the people can't see what you're writing, but they can then see who you're writing to, which is bad enough. Ex-partners can stalk new ones, current partners can blow your cover if you're having an affair, and people in power can track journalists to see who their anonymous sources are. These are just some examples of how it's not always good to be optimistic. Fucking awful move, Google.

update/more pictures/video

2010-02-08T09:27:00.006Z

Nothing as good as a blog title that just presumes you even noticed I haven't been blogging.

The house is finally, somehow, rid of the spectre of our party. Two weeks down the line and there were patches of cans and dirt in various places, but one warning of an inspection from our landlord and the house was looking lovely. We also got the boiler fixed, so we've got heating and hot water again. Yeah!

More pictures from the party, taken by Hylton. I've still got my roll of film to develop...

Also, the video from the Beaty Heart performance has been edited and uploaded:

2010-02-01T18:13:00.000Z

excellent new music video

ADWIPE (or: 'I'm a PC and being a cock was MY idea')

2010-01-21T18:06:00.005Z

So now everyone's seen the Windows 7 adverts doing the rounds on posters, billboards, hoardings, and most prominently, television. If you judge an advertising campaign's success upon how narcissistic, self-serving, self-important and patronising it is, then Window's campaign can quite easily go down as the most successful one ever. The most annoying facet of the entire thing is that it's just not quite as good as Apple's slur campaign against PCs. It's not as funny, not as cool, and way more offensive, like they imagined that every single audience member doesn't know that Windows is a piece of shit (which is quite ironic considering that I've heard that the new system is actually their best one yet). Shame. Here, have some bullshit:

Materialistically, they're on a par with the adverts for Confused.com. You know the ones, they're the ones with 'normal people' in their rooms talking about how great the whole service is. Euuuurgh.

Now for something way more positive. Long ago there was an advert for Virgin Media, which I actually watched in my own time on YouTube because I enjoyed it so much. If you can't remember it then here it is again:

Here is their new one. I've mainly seen it at the cinema so if you went recently (saaaay, Avatar or something) you may have seen it. Just as well made, I like it almost as much. Less Windows, more Virgin adverts please!

p-p-p-PARTY

2010-01-19T16:11:00.011Z

Awful blog title. Eurgh. Anyway, last Friday me and my housemates held our first party at 8 Musgrove Road. In the week leading up to the party itself, all manner of stresses and strains were placed upon us, particularly: getting Beaty Heart to play, getting decent speakers from somewhere, and tidying the house and making it party proof, no mean feat considering the place is dirty and messy to begin with, and all six of us have an overabundance of possessions.

After deciding that my room would be the designated 'locked' room with all of our possessions inside, we spent a couple of days moving everything in there, as well as renting out a soundsystem for about £70 that then went in the near-empty living room. After watching Beaty soundcheck and making sure everything was a-ok, we were ready. Absolutely nothing could have prepared me for what then followed over the next 24 hours.

On FB we had about 230 people confirmed as attending, and Rose's experiences at Off Modern the night before (i.e. everyone asking her if she was going to some house party in New X) meant that there a little nerves flying about concerning how many people were coming to the party. At about 11pm the house was about a quarter full, people chatting nicely, and the party was alright. And then BAM. Hundreds of people:

At about 12:30 it was getting pretty hard to move anywhere, but somehow the various members of Beaty Heart were collected and they took to the stage/living room. Here's the view they had from the end of the room:

I only stuck around for ten minutes to see them play because it was so goddam CRAMPED in the house. If you want to see the pictures of Beaty Heart's set then click here, Phil took some gems. At some point they handed out intruments amongst the audience and a raucus noise was made. Super!

As I said, I went outside during their set. And, as I stood on my front step, all I could see in Musgrove Road was people. A FUCK load of people. I would hazard a guess of about 150-200 people who just couldn't get in to the house because there were already 200 inside. Insane. It couldn't go on forever, and things were getting pretty weird: people were climbing over the outside of our house to get in and out via windows. I've heard stories of people trying to get in via the back garden, which is all good and proper until you realise that to get to our garden you have to climb over two gardens beforehand. Apparently people cut themselves getting in.

Anyway, it couldn't go on forever, and at this point a police patrol car with two officers in it arrived. I heard them call for backup before I heard the shout of 'so who lives here then?!' before I made a quick exit. So I did what any person would do and walked down the road to Sainsbury's to get a bottle of water (as if I could even get inside to get it) before returning. And upon my return to my own house party, I was greeted by even MORE people outside, along with about five police vans, fifteen police cars, and about forty police officers. And then at this point, the police stood in a horizontal line and kettled the people outside. If you're not acquainted with the concept of 'kettling', google it. With the phrase 'G20'. That'll give you an idea of what they did.

This my road, Musgrove Road. Phil took this picture, from his house, which is Number 24. Which gives you an idea of how many cars arrived. You can vaguely see the area in which our house is in the far left of the shot. How many can you count?

After they kettled/cleared the party outside our house, they cleared the party inside, despite four people screaming at the approaching policeman 'YOU HAVEN'T GOT A WARRANT''. The entry of the police to the party seemed to set people off, and I, who was trapped outside having failed to argue my way into my own house, saw about three or four people being taken away. Apparently some girl fell down the stairs into a policewoman and was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. What?!

After the house had been cleared, we had all got back inside, and I had had an argument with the angriest brick of a policeman I've ever met (over me sticking my head out of the bedroom window - he told me that he was asking me to stop it and I told him that 'you're not asking me, you're telling me, I haven't really got a choice, have I?'), people came back in little groups until, at about 2am, we had about 150 inside the house resuming the party, which eventually ended in the afternoon of Saturday. There's a crack in one window, the carpets are a different colour, someone had sex in one of the bathrooms, and the light in that bathroom is broken, but apart from that, the house is largely unharmed. Like I said, there's a link for the shots of Beaty Heart, but Phil also took some shots of people, which you can find here. I took some shots (including quite a few of the police presence) on an analogue camera so they'll be up when I get them developed, and Oliver Conway, president of the Bass society, took a video recording of Beaty's gig, so I suppose that will come soon, whenever we get our dirty little paws on it. And if you came to the party, I hope you had a good time. Maybe in the summer we'll see you at 8 Musgrove again...

Dark days

2010-01-11T12:09:00.004Z

So, it's happened. After a decade-or-so of point-blank refusal to watch even an entire episode of it, years of my mother banning it from the household television schedules, and with the end of the entire format in plain sight, I have somewhat depressingly yet comfortingly become addicted to the current, and final, season of Celebrity Big Brother. I blame Phil and his godforsaken Sky+ box for this situation, but truth be told, I am actually quite enjoying the show. I am a constant source of ranting (and boredom, if you're someone who's not me) over the entire genre of 'reality' television, but to watch a season of it and actually enjoy the experience is something entirely new to me.

I think it has something to do with the fact that very soon, Big Brother and it's 234876234592 spin-off shows obsessed with what viewers have to say on various events (whoever heard of such an absurdity?!) will cease to exist. I know that there won't be more of it except for a final regular season, and I think my mind is allowing me a final guilty pleasure, or rather, that I need to at least watch one season from start to finish so that I can at least talk about it and have some sort of vague knowledge that I'm not talking out of my arse.

Secondly, I think my enjoyment stems from the fact that the group of celebrities in the house are genuinely interesting to watch. The recent introduction of Ivana Trump is something I am not happy about - not because I don't like her, but because I was interested enough in watching how the original housemates' relationships progressed. One of the main reasons I never watched BB was because of how interfering the producers were. The last week of original celebrities was actually good television. It was touching, funny, cringe-worthy and enjoyable, and I don't think that about a lot of television at all. My favourite celebrities are Sisqo and Basshunter/Jonas, but I also like Lady Sovereign and, whisper it quietly, Stephanie Beacham. She just sits there making vaguely cynical and worldweary observations on the rest of the house. When she first entered I cast her as uppity, but I have re-evaluated her, as I find her comments usually to be all too true. Oh, and every time the camera's on Katya I just want to give her a hug. Normal?

27/12/2009

2009-12-27T21:21:00.002Z

so, it's the end of the decade, eh? i have read too much of tao lin's and brandon scott gorrell's blogs and i feel ridiculously odd. here are things i have noticed today, this week, month, year and decade.

facebook groups are not going to save the world. the new travelodge in maidstone is not going to be destroyed because you join a group. i don't care if it's not entirely serious or whatever

me and my fellow generation (so, v. early 20-somethings) are starting to join things that start 'when i was your age...'. WE ARE TWENTY. twenty-one or twenty-two in some cases. we are not old. why are we jumping the gun so much? reminds me of ben folds: kids today getting old too fast/they get nostalgic about the last ten years/before the last ten years have passed. maybe if we jump the gun as much as possible, time travel will be invented, and the universe will implode.

country and western is fucking wicked, if a little misogynist.

sometimes i feel like i'm not really here, or that i'm already dead. huh

i want to travel the world so that i can see the biggest stadia in the world.

i should have been french. definitely.

i am really hungover.

my xbox is most probably fucked. i bought a new component AV wire and it still didn't work. so it's either the little thing that goes from the components to the tv scart itself or the xbox. i bought a new 'little thing' and it still didn't work. either the tv or the box. probably the xbox though.

i wrote an e-mail to charlie brooker and he still hasn't replied. although it was on the 23rd december so he's probably on holiday or something. i don't resent him

can't really be bothered with making this blog either one thing or another anymore. once it was just 'last night i was sooooo drunk, duuuude' bullshit and now it's just 'duuuude i'm so clever about the media' bullshit. more blogs i follow are starting to get serious and i'm a little bit bored of it, and also a little embarrassed of my own blog. whenever people bring it up in public i feel like cringing.

i am interested to see how the 2010s turn out. but then again, i'm not really bothered. i just want to finish my degree and go travelling, forever, until i die

Media Predictions for the New Year and Decade

2009-12-23T22:26:00.002Z

Have you been noticing the recent trend of newspapers, websites and television programmes making predictions for the next decade? If you look close enough, all they're trying to do is repeat the same 'history of the decade' claptrap as everything else, but disguise it as forward-thinking. But, if you can't beat them, join them. Here are some predictions for the new year, and decade, and a rough guess of how many years each will take.

Big-budget reality TV talent shows to fall out of favour with the public. 'Everyday' low-budget reality TV that concerns the domestic side of life will continue for longer, certainly. The mockery of the public vote in recent series of The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and I'm A Celebrity! as well as the recent beating of Joe-what's-his-name in the Christmas charts are clues that it's the beginning of the end for reality TV that is based around the idea of 'celebrity'. I give it five years, maybe less.
Collaborative media will absolutely kick off, and become commonplace. Maybe in a bit longer than a decade, it may even replace social networking. Watch GoogleWave and Microsoft Live Meeting closely.
More newspapers and magazines will close down, and even more will switch from print to being entirely web-based. This has already started and will continue unabated.
Older forms of media will attempt to monetise what we currently consider to be 'free' on the internet. We're seeing it already with Mandelson's plans to punish filesharers, and what Murdoch's said about paying for internet news. I hope (note: HOPE) that they will fail, but it's impossible to tell.
Internet and TV will become extremely integrated. This very week the BBC got the go ahead for their project to have the BBC iPlayer, 4OD, and ITV's player incorporated as software on internet on TVs. In years to come I think that if the trends continue unchallenged, we will come to see TV schedules as out of date.

Agree? Disagree? Tell me what you reckon

Buying in the Name of

2009-12-23T12:59:00.005Z

A lot has happened since I last wrote here. It snowed everywhere, I came home for Christmas, Simon Cowell lost, and much more besides.

I finally got the photos I took from my birthday excursion to Surrey in October with Jack, Rich, and Oliver. They were taken on this weird fully automatic point-and-click film camera I picked up for a couple of quid last time I was in Maidstone, in late September. When you turn it on the lens cap pushes out and slides to the side. I waste the batteries purely to see it do it because it's so mesmerising. Anyway, I digress. Here are some of the pictures, they've come out relatively well:

I came back to Maidstone on Monday, and went out last night (Tuesday). I had a lot of fun at the Loft, and saw loads of people I haven't seen in ages, and the night was generally wicked. I cannot WAIT for Source to reopen and the Loft to become shit again, though - the bar staff in Loft are fucking awful. I don't know them and I don't know who they are so I don't feel guilty saying this - the bar staff in Loft are possibly the worst bar staff I have ever seen. I've never been in a club when the staff are so inept. But pfft, forget them. Last night was WICKED.

Enough narcissism, though. There are two trends/events in the media that currently deserve my attention. Firstly, is the recent Rage Against the Machine campaign to get Killing in the Name to the Christmas Number One slot over the predictable X-Factor victor single. I have always been a huge RATM fan, and they were one of the first bands I ever really listened to in-depth. Their ideas, currently more than ever, strike a reasonance in the media-saturated twenty-first century. Although they were generally talking about mid-nineties conglomerated greed, it is testament to the depth of their lyrics that shows how relevant they are today. Which is why I was pessimistic on their chances of actually taking the No. 1 slot, when combined with the fact that they were download-only, as well as a rap-metal expletive-ridden communist group. They really are the embodiment of everything that mainstream media and culture isn't. And they're fucking Christmas Number 1! Brilliant. There are some people who claim that the fact that Cowell has shares in Sony, which owns both labels which produced both the X-Factor and RATM songs, as meaning that the entire exercise was pointless as both songs line his pockets. But, I think that these people have rather missed the point: the point of the campaign is not to economically damage Cowell and his empire, at all. Cowell is as much a figurehead as he is a rich man, and the campaign was a symbolic one in my opinion. Anything which shows people that this man does not have control on what is popular is a good thing. For once, the UK has not given in to depressing inevitability.

Secondly, I want to bring to your attention a worrying trend. As you may or may not be aware, in the mid-nineties there was a school of political and cultural thought generally brought under the title 'the End of Ideology'. The idea basically claimed that we had experienced the defeat of all major ideologies except for that of Western, free-market liberal democracy. The whole thing was brought up post-Communism, and you can understand why some people thought that the West had 'won'. The entire idea was extremely Americanised, and so in the last decade and the half, newer ideologies have challenged the US: environmentalism, Islam (and radical Islam as the villain of the piece), and a few other ideologies have dented the USA's pride. I think there's a point in there which goes some way to explaining why the US has been so anti-environmentalist as well as a perceived anti-Islam mental attitude.

Anyway, where's this trend? And the answer is, I think, in America's music videos. Obviously pro-American values are entrenched in all Western media forms, such as tv, the press, films, etc etc etc, but I've started to notice an active, insanely pro-US attitude in some of the country's biggest exports.

The video which got me thinking all this in the first place is the video (as well as the music and lyrics) for Miley Cyrus' Party in the USA (the clue to where this is going is in the title of the song). Cyrus and her fellow purer-than-pure Disney teen stars are being used to peddle, to a new generation, a collection of pro-American values of patriotic commercialisation. Sound like I'm being a communist paranoid? Let me describe the video for you. Cyrus starts in some random car meet in a field in some Southern state, with every boy looking like Johnny Knoxville, and every girl wearing denim hot pants or some equally default code of dress. Little ol' Miley is in the big world of America, the place where dreams are made, and pretty soon she's hijacked some old-school deep-south microphone (the type they use at rodeos) and is singing and dancing the scarily catchy chorus off the back of a pickup truck, with everyone staring and cheering, and boys doing flips everywhere. Cut to the next chrous, and a huge American flag unfurls, in stupendous slow-motion (just like it does in Die Hard 4.0), and then Cyrus sings infront of it alone, with glitter falling around her. And it's shot in a wide angle, just for added effect. There's a random Pusstcat Dolls-esque scene where her and her backup dancers are dancing in a climbing frame (because they're singing to a child audience, see?) and Cryus moans about wanting to return home to comforting old Nashville, before she has 'made it' and she is singing in a concert environment, with the digital background being made up of a animated US flag. Do you get the point? She starts in some field, and finally, inevitably, makes it to a high-end, glossy concert environment. The entire thing is catered towards selling the American Dream: no matter how rural or small-town you are, in America, anything is possible! Literally: rags, all the way to riches.

Does it sound like I've given the video an unfair critique? Perhaps. But, just to prove my point, here is the video itself, presented in glorious YouTube HD. Watch it full-screen for full propaganda effect. Watch out for some lyrical gems, by the way, including lines like: Look to my right/And I see the Hollywood sign/This is all so crazy/Everybody seems so famous, and Got my hands up/They're playing my song/I know I'm going to be okay/Yeah, it's a party in the USA/Yeah, it's a party in the USA (full ridiculous lyrics can be found here). Watch out for the Jay-Z and Britney Spears references, too:

Terrifying.

And, on the subject of Jay-Z, have you seen the video for Empire State of Mind? Exactly the same idea, except for an older audience. Exactly the same idea:

This song basically has the same message as Party in the USA, except for an older audience. This time, however, it uses the image and reputation of one of the most famous cities in the world as a representation for the US in general. Jay-Z's lyrics are full of New York and American cultural references, and the video reflects each reference by showing it on-screen. It's simple stuff but horribly effective, I dare you to watch the video and not want to go to New York instantly. The chorus, sung by Alicia Keys, goes along the lines of New York/I'm from where dreams are made of/There's nothing you can't do/Now you're in New York/These streets will make you feel brand new/The lights will inspire you/Let's hear it for New York, New York, New York. It's patriotic-city stuff. Again you can see the American Dream come through: rags to riches, and 'anything is possible'.

The rags-to-riches message has always been entrenched in the American media system of representation, and indeed, it's been present in non-American countries that have a strong capitalistic system (the UK, Europe, Russia, and increasingly in the Eastern world), but I feel like it's being heavily peddled in our current climate, where people feel that the system they live in and prosper in is coming under threat. When something comes under threat, it either rolls over and dies, or steps up a notch in order to save itself, and America and capitalism has had too many opponents in the past to let a little globalised environmentalism stand in the way of the dominant school of thought. I think we'll see an increase in overtly pro-American songs and videos in the next year or few, so keep your eyes peeled.

'Living Stories'

2009-12-09T16:21:00.002Z

Apologies for the distinct lack of blogging recently. My photography is in for this Friday and as such is taking up most of my time, and, believe it or not, we still don't have internet in our house. I have practically forgotten how to use Facebook (finding girls, stalking girls, etc) in the length of time that I'm not on the web since moving in.

Today I read an article (which you can read here) about Google's latest, most recently under-reported development, named 'Living Stories'. The whole thing is being referred to as an 'experiment', part of Google's 'GoogleLabs' area of software development. Creations from the Labs usually act as a good prediction for what we'll regard as commonplace in years to come - on a side note, if you want to find out more about what ingenious tools they're constantly creating, check out the GoogleLabs homepage.

Whilst most of the experiments are tools, not too desimilar to any number of 'apps' you'll find for your iPhone, Mac, web browser, etc; Living Stories is something which could conceivably stay around for the enxtended future of the internet. The reason for this will become apparent when I describe what it does, and who they've done it with.

Living Stories is effectively Web 2.0 and the entire structure of user-based interaction, specifically, user-based reportage and journalism (think twitter, mobile phone videos of events, etc), being incorporated into older news structures, such as websites for older, established media outlets. To surmise: any one thematic story has one URL page, but where Living Stories varies from common reporatge is in that the URL for the individual story is 'dynamic': not in the sense that the story is re-written and timestamped, but in the sense that news from various stories will be conglomerated together. Google also discuss how if you have seen the URL before, and you return to it after a period of time, it will display and highlight specific developments that it knows you have missed, due to the correlation of the date and time between when you last accessed the page, and when news posts were posted. Clever, no? I can't explain it fully in all honesty - just read the Google News Blog post for a full explanation and standard video.

So how is this revolutionary?

Firstly, Google has created this in line with two established newspapers: and The New York Times and The Washington Post. The very fact that Google, perhaps the biggest and most well-known internet brand, and therefore a huge, huge figurehead of the so-called 'internet revolution', has reached out to a perceived 'old' media outlet, that traditionally are wary of rival internet companies, especially ones like Google, that represent a massive challenge to their entire existence, is important. Extremely so. Secondly, it has incredibly important connotations for the 'Web 2.0' movement. This could see the blending of individualistic, citizen reportage, into older media outlets, thus striking a medium that keeps everyone happy: individuals get to keep their democratic internet, newspapers keep their gate-keeping, societal power. I am going to go out on a limb here and argue that this single development by Google and the two newspapers could be the moment where we examine the crux of the matter of the news media itself. This could be the time where it is decided for good: whether we will see the internet be truly commercialised, whether it be in a way in which individuals are happy to see their stories incorporated, or whether it's forced, and we all end up using the internet like the Italians use their television (if you don't know what I mean, read this article by Time Magazine - shocking stuff - I'm going to write on it soon). Or perhaps this is the moment where the Internet goes all out and completely shuts out the old media, and people fiercly attempt to hold on the the web as a completely free, wild environment. I think the matter will be decided within the decade for sure, probably within five years, maybe even sooner. Keep your eyes open, and read the facts! Everything's going to change, and it's already started. Don't let this moment pass you by.

BA2 Photography: First Shoot

2009-11-30T19:53:00.003Z

Firstly, a big thanks to my good friend Tom Gunning for willing to be a subject.
Following on from the original idea of 'deconstruction', my idea is to have a sequence of images, starting with an image which is for the most part technically perfect (the 'construct'), and then images after this which work to deconstruct the image, thus showing the audience that the orignal image we have seen is fake, unreal - a construct. In my first shoot I was purely experimenting, not knowing what form the deconstruction would take.

Contact sheets (you can zoom in to see my experiments):

Here are some preliminary shots, which go some way to highlighting the deconstruction:

Generally, each image, going down from 1-5, deconstructs more of the construct. In the first image we see the image as it is intended: technically perfect (i.e. it is, to all extent and purposes, 'real'), and the subject is looking at the audience, as well as the photographer. Each image after this reveals more about how it is a constructed reality: firstly we see behind the backdrop, then the artifical lighting, and then the props. Please note I AM aware that he is sitting in the first one: this is purely because the constructed shot where Gunning was standing didn't come out. I've developed one of him sitting just so I can use it for comparison in a sequence.

After discussion with my tutors, there will be six images in the next, and possibly, final sequence - two constructed images, and four to deconstruct. The first image will be zoomed in, the final one will be at the back corner of the studio:

Image 1: Head and shoulder portrait of the subject
Image 2: Body portrait of the subject (these two images will be 'the construct')
Image 3: Portrait zoomed out - the edge of the backdrop can be seen, as can part of the studio to the sides
Image 4: Portrait zoomed out, and to the left - as well as the backdrop, we can see a lighting rig
Image 5: Further zooming out, so now BOTH lighting rigs can be seen
Image 6: The final deconstruction: we can see the entire studio, with backdrop, subject, both lighting rigs, and also a photographer - who is taking the original two images. The audience will then be aware that the entire sequence is the same moment in time, from different perspectives. In this way, Images 1 + 2 will then loop with Image 6, as we see both the 'process' and the 'result'.

Shots taken soon, more to follow.

BA2 Photography: Theoretical Groundwork & Idea

2009-11-30T19:40:00.003Z

Theory (left hand side) and implementation (right):

Effectively, my idea of the deconstruction of photography came about through the general approaches taken by Goldsmiths through the teaching of most, if not, all of their courses. If you look at Goldsmiths' advertising for new students there's a load of stuff about 'challenging the norms' and 'thinking differently'. For the most part last year I generally cast this as PR claptrap, aimed at wooing pretentious middle class kids obsessed with image (myself included, I have to admit). However, this year, I have realised the reality: the theory of deconstruction, with additional basis in Marxism and post-structuralism is at the base of nearly everything Goldsmiths teaches.

This term I have taken a module entitled Communication, Psychology, Experience; and this course, now nearing completion, has centrered around deconstructing every moral and value that most people take for granted. Building upon the theory of 'Myth' by Roland Barthes, the course, and my exceptional lecturer (and also seminar teacher) has taught me how society works to force us into a certain way of looking at ourselves and of identifying ourselves. I am planning a lengthy tract for this blog entitled 'The Intrinsic Surveillance', which I hope will make what I'm talking about clearer for people, but for the moment, I just want to explain how this has inspired my photography. Effectively, all I plan to do is deconstuct the image. My next post and first prints will go further to explaining this.

BA2 Photography: Research Notes

2009-11-30T19:34:00.002Z

Research into the portraiture of Jane Bown and Francis Giacobetti.

The End of 'Reality'?

2009-11-24T14:40:00.005Z

I think it's time to look at reality television programming again. We don't yet have television in 8 Musgrove, but I am well aware of common TV events, as I find them impossible to avoid plastered all over the internet whenever I get a chance to go online (no, we don't have internet either). My basic argument goes as follows: we are witnessing the end of the high-end reality-tv format.

Reality TV has basically become ubiquitous in the last few years. You can argue for hours over why this has happened, arguments ranging from the pragmatic ("it's cheap-to-produce television, which is useful as television finds it harder to make profit when marked against the rise of free media such as the internet") to the societal analytical ("the rise of user-based media has meant that old media has to look newer and more cutting edge, and more user-generated content"). But this is academic. There are two forms of reality television. On the one hand you have the prime-time, big-budget programming, which is centrered around celebrity - either the creation of celebrity through talent shows, or celebrity itself, in which the only reason the shows exist is to jump on the back of whichever 'celebrity' is fading enough to be desperate enough to appear on the show in the face of almost near-certain embarrassment. You've all seen these shows, from the original Popstars all the way through Pop Idol to The X Factor and I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! to the revived Strictly Come Dancing. On the other end of the spectrum, however, you have the low-budget, 'everyday' reality television, which usually takes regular members of the public and sticks them in a bastardised, more often than not middle-class situation. You're looking at Come Dine With Me, or any number of property or interior design shows, from A Place In The Sun to Grand Designs. They are, for the most part, constricted to the daytime schedules, and, if they aren't, they are repeated incessantly in these schedules after a 9pm Channel 4 slot for the original screening. We're also seeing a rise in reality TV which takes the freakish, the unusual and the downright weird, and effectively scares the viewer into thinking 'Oh God, what if this was me, I can't believe how weird this person is, thank God I'm a right-leaning, normal Middle-class White British person'. You can make a show yourself, right now: just take a value held dear by the middle classes (let's say...a child), and just give it a personalised title that sounds literally ridiculous: My Baby Has Three Penises. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? You know exactly who's going to make it, too. I'm looking at you, Channel 4. One more show on some person from South America who has a body growth three times the size of his or her body and I'm writing a formal letter of complaint.

Anyway, I digress. I would argue that, currently at least, the 'everyday' programming (as well as the 'weird science' freak shows) is staying strong, and looks like it will continue unabated for a good few years yet. The reason for this is simple: everyday life goes on as it always does, and television based directly on this, it follows, will go on just like the life it seeks to play with. Additionally, I have no doubt that Channel 4 will continue to find people with odd deformations until the format is completely dead in the water. They just will.

However, it is the celebrity-based reality television which is under pressue. I think the situation is close to reaching a crux point, if it hasn't already, and I would not be surprised at all if we saw it collapse under its own bloated self-importance. Don't know what I'm referring to yet? Let me clarify. I think the British public has, like it always has done and always will, grown bored of the latest media trend in television and is rebelling in the only way is has been taught to: the live vote. Look at the last seasons of the major reality shows, the ones that are even reported in the press. On Strictly Come Dancing the quite-frankly hopeless dancing of John Sergeant was consistently saved by the public vote, who forced him to retire, as he had a serious chance of winning. More recently, the worst contestants on this year's X Factor, John and Edward Grimes, have only just been booted off, but they were saved time after time by a public vote. And, in perhaps the most telling situation, Katie Price a.k.a. Jordan, Queen of the gutter press, re-entered the Australian jungle on I'm A Celebrity... in a cynical PR move, and was promptly rewarded by the public to do six 'Bushtucker' trials in a row, before she walked off the show, claiming to miss her children. It definitely didn't have anything to do with not wanting to eat another kangaroo testacle, or whatever the trials entail these days.

I think the evidence is building up, quite frankly. The British public has a history of going against what the people in the corridors of media power always think, as well as a history of fickleness in terms of media trends and formats. I would argue that the public are simply growing bored of putting B and C-list celebrities into odd situations or of creating these C-list celebrities in the first place (see: the failure of most of the winners of the X-Factor, with notable exceptions), and is manifesting this boredom by making a mockery of the shows which are now seen to be serious parts of UK culture. You only have to see the indignant annoyance on the faces of John Sergeant's dancing rivals, or the singing rivals of 'Jedward' to see this.

There is a flip side to this argument, as there always is. A more cynical version of myself would argue that the creators of these shows are well aware of the boredom, or were even aware that it was going to happen in the first place, and have so deliberatley filled the shows with comedy characters not to be taken seriously, in order to just get more newspaper coverage and attention from the public when the point of the show is inevitably compromised by a public that seems to be taking matters in to its own hands. I think most people are aware that the X Factor, like Popstars and Pop Idol before it, was slowly losing audiences and a place in UK culture, and so you could, if you were feeling cyncial about the whole thing, look at the fact that Cowell (who has the biggest economical interest in the show) has a final say on who gets through to the final section of the show where the public vote comes in. Any normal person would not let 'Jedward' through on pure talent, as it's clear that they simply don't have any. Why else would you let them through, if it's clear that the only thing they have to contribute is a Marmite-like quality - you either love them or hate them (I am...indifferent)? And so, Cowell ensures that his show has prime place in the nation's discussion, leading to more viewing figures, which means bigger advertising premiums, which means more money for the high-trousered one.

A conclusion? It depends on whether you're pessimistic or optimistic. An optimist would see these irregularities of public voting as the public voting for its disinterest in the reality tv celebrity format. A pessimist would argue that the whole thing is deliberate, that figures were falling naturally, and so the producers have induced 'scandal'. I fall in the middle. I think that the public was, to an extent, getting bored, and so voted with its humour, but I also think that, just like every other trend in this country, the producers have seen what is going on and managed to manipulate it for personal gain.

'Character'

2009-11-16T15:00:00.002Z

Excuse the sporadic writing, I'm brainstorming, and my ideas are constantly in flux.

Today I have been thinking about what the idea of portraiture means to me in a photographic context. Personally it implies various themes: character, both of the subject and the creator; mood; emotion; style; all of these are constants that vary according to each individual image. Whilst thinking about this, I want to examine the idea of character through portraiture, specifically, facial portraiture. Simple aesthetics such as the clothing and body position of the subject in a studio setting can greatly affect the overall result and abstract of the piece, and so I would concentrate on facial character.

I don't really want to simply change the facial expression of the subject. I want to specifically investigate how our reading of an individual's character changes according to things that are external to the subject, using a variety of tools to examine a variety of abstract ideals.

Themes:
The Character:
Implication
Reflection
Implementation
Assumption and Presumption
Abstraction and Extraction
Naturalisation, Nurturalisation
The Social and the Individualistic

Tools:
OHP/Slides
Lighting
Expression
Enlargement manipulation
Reflections - mirrors + paint. colour
Obscuring - steam, smoke --link to lighting

More soon, hopefully more coherent as well.

Jane Bown

2009-11-13T16:17:00.003Z

Last week I went with Lucy to see the Jane Bown Exposures exhibition at King's Place, just up York Way off of King's Cross Station. It was my first exhibition I had attended in light of my continuing photography course at Goldsmiths, and I went along to see if it could trigger any inspiration whatsoever, following my disturbing lack thereof in recent weeks.

What I got was an excellent lesson in black-and-white portraiture. Some of Bown's pictures didn't do anything for me, which is the case with nearly every exhibition, but whilst some faded away, I found myself falling in love with a few portraits, and it really started to give me some ideas regarding my project. Here are my favourite images from the exhibition.

Out of all of them, I think the shots of Liza Minnelli and Richard Nixon stand out, personally at least. I will refrain from attempting to post some quasi-intellectual analysis behind my favouritism, but I like both of the images for how they capture a moment in two varying situations. Minnelli is placed in a moment of personal reflection, and there are some strong messages about performance being sent out. Nixon is caught in the moment of a press hub, yet you are reminded that this is an individual with a strong, strong aura. He seems to command the camera's view, instead of the other way around.

Overview

2009-11-13T11:01:00.002Z

When I woke up this morning there was vomit in the hallway, which is currently filled by the bin bags that we can't fit in our wheely bin following one epic clean of the house last week. Some of the rubbish has now spilled out of the bags, and the hall is covered by a mixture of delivery pizza boxes, cans, and empty milk bottles. There was also vomit in the sink mixed with a saucepan lid and an unopened bottle of washing up liquid.

Recently I have cut down on the going out, but I have still had some wicked nights. I had the pleasure of watching Fantastic Mr. Fox this week, and I'm happy to say that it more than lived up to my expectations. It was a pleasure to watch it. The animation style is superb, and the humour is well placed - not too obvious, and not too clever, but I still laughed out loud several times. It felt like the 21st century's version of Wallace and Gromit, and I say that as a compliment to both texts.

I've been to a couple of photography exhibitions, and I'll write about them and my photography course relatively soon.

In Profile: Stan Kroenke

2009-11-03T15:38:00.005Z

Today's news that businessman, sports mogul, and general all-round rich-guy Stan Kroenke has increased his stake in Arsenal's shares have caused further speculation that he is mounting a takeover for our club. Little is known about the man himself, certainly in the UK at least, and I think his relative secrecy and reclusiveness in front of the UK media has caused polarising reactions, some people suspecting his secrecy as part of a bigger plan, and some applauding his secrecy, seeing it as representing a shrewd and understated personality, which would certainly fit in with the current atmosphere at the club at management level. With this in mind, I've attempted to put together a profile of the man himself, in an attempt to try and decide whether I would be supportive of this man owning the club I have always supported.

Kroenke, at least, is educated. According to Wikipedia, he has both a BA, a BSc, as well as an impressive MBA (Master of Business Administration) from the University of Missouri. I've struggled to find much information on the web about his background apart from this educational information, as well as the semi-relevant information that he is married to an heir to the Wal-Mart empire. If I were to make an (arguably) broad characterisation assumption based on his educational background, I would say that it is positive: the man would seem to know what he is doing, in theory at least. Let us not forget that Arsene Wenger, who many of us credit with the success Arsenal are experiencing, and the man who most consider the creator of Arsenal's policy of fiscal sensibility and self-sufficiency, has a Masters in Economics himself.

Kroenke, most famously perhaps, has a history of sports ownership. He owns the Colorado Rapids, an American football (soccer) team, the Colorado Avalanches, an ice-hockey team, and also the Denver Nuggets, an NBA team. Kroenke seems to be a localised mogul. Both the Avalanches and Nuggets play at the Pepsi Centre, so his commercial nous is not in doubt - getting a famous commercial sponsor is just as important as getting one that is financially viable.

His three American teams are not the most famous or known teams in their respective fields, and, instead of this being a reason to be apprehensive, I see it as a reason to be optimistic. Many would see commercialised, mogul-ised clubs that are not THE most successful teams as failures, and most are given an air of fatality - it is nearly always implied by sources/media that the project will inevitably fail. Yet again, I wouldn't put this down to genuine journalism. I would, somewhat controversially, put it down to media not agreeing with Kroenke's model of mass-commercialisation without competing to be THE best.

It is for this reason that I think that his teams not being 'Number One' in their respective fields is a reason to possibly welcome his presence at Arsenal. Whilst their is a distinct lack of sources concerning his management and economical style (making this profile quite hard, and leaving me relying on assumption from empirical/circumstancial evidence), the fact that Kroenke is quietly running three teams at relative success - that is, not running them into the ground and saddling them with crippling debt - means that his style would fit perfectly into that of Arsenal, who, out of the five clubs that spend alot of money (us, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester City), were the only club last season to operate at a profit (ignoring the refinancing that came about because of moving grounds).

Pretty much, there's alot of hearsay on how profitable his three teams are. From what I've gathered, the Nuggets were a tiny basketball team, but Kroenke has spent alot on money on the team, at a lost, in order to turn them into a serious team (apparently, basketball is his favourite sport). The Rapids are a shrewd team commercially, with numerous partners (Arsenal included). Alledgedly they haven't run at a profit for a while, but the fact that their profits as well as other businesses in the Kroenke group get mixed up confuses the issue. Not too much information on the Avalanches, but the fact that they and the Nuggets play at a new, large, commercial sporting arena that has doubled up for commercial and public events outside of sport has striking similarities to Arsenal.

All in all, I think I welcome Kroenke to the club. I have doubts as to whether I would like a single person to retain majority control over a club, as I think that I beleive in the plurality of ownership principle (i.e. safety in numbers), but, if it's going to happen, I'd rather it be Kroenke, rather than anyone else.

2009-11-01T13:47:00.002Z

Excuse my relative absence from blogging.

Halloween came and went. Here was my inspiration:

Here was the result at the SU on Friday night:

Rockin, eh? I can't really remember much of the evening because I drank too much. I think was in the Union for less than an hour, in which I apparently removed my fur coat and wandered around topless. If you look on Facebook there is blurred evidence of this.

Soon to be blogged: US vs UK television drama, and the Large Scale Immersive Audio Experiment at Goldsmiths, once I've got my head around the idea and execution of it on the college green I'll get writing.

Red tape

2009-10-26T15:11:00.003Z

Today, after slowly spending weeks and weeks trying to get money together to eat/go places/go out in the evenings, I decided to try and get to the bottom of my student loan situation, or lack thereof. Basically, I still haven't got my student loan. Originally I thought I had just got mixed up in the student loans company fiasco, which has left student after student struggling to pay just about anything, ever.

I phoned up Student Finance England, ready to shout at whichever poor soul had the misfortune to answer the call. However, the woman at the other end was SO nice that all my anger suddenly disapparated, and this actually helped - apparently, it was something to do with Goldsmiths.

Cut to three hours later and half an hour ago, and I am ready to shout at the people in the Enrollments office. I queue for about half an hour, only to get in there, explain my situation, and be informed that I need my financial notification letter. I wandered out the door confused, only to look at my Enrollment form to see, in the middle of the letter:

"Please photocopy your proof of financial support alongside your Enrollment form and give it to Enrollment, Records and Fees in RHB122. Failure to do so will result in no loan being paid to you, you lazy little skim-reader. Serves you right."

Okay, maybe not the last bit was true, but that's what it said. After getting angry I realised that it was, simply, my fault - what I've effectively done is cause a vacuum in the expansive bureaucracy of higher education in the UK. But I printed off a copy of the notification, went back, gave it in, and apparently I get my loan within two weeks. Awesome! Now I can pay back various debts to my friends, Orange (who are demanding £79.18 for last month, what), my savings (which were dented in attempting to pay £400/month rent with no income whatsoever), and my poor mother (for much the same reason). Yeah!

Pass This On

2009-10-25T13:31:00.001Z

Meat for the lions

2009-10-25T12:27:00.002Z

So, as everyone is now aware, Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, appeared on BBC's Question Time amid angry studenty demonstrations outside the studios. If you saw it, you'll be aware of Griffin's collapse in front of the nation's eyes. He was weak, incoherent, and generally came across exactly as most people think the BNP are: racist idiots. I agree with the BBC allowing Griffin on the programme, for exactly the reason that everyone saw: Griffin and the BNP's ideas just don't work, and by broadcasting how ridiculously stupid they are, it works against the BNP.

Ironically enough, I found the programme itself weirdly nauseating. Not because of the mulch being peddled by Griffin, but because of the general atmosphere and feeling in the studio. Did anyone else find it slightly ironic that the police spent hours trying to stop angry protestors from crashing the studio and screaming at Griffin about how wrong he is, only for five panellists and a studio audience to do it for them?

Question Time is supposed to be an arena for democratic discussion, where four panellists come under intense audience scrutiny in a tense and difficult atmosphere. Most of the time, panellists ALWAYS screw up, and I think most people would agree that if you go on the programme, you're going to be screwed over a little bit. Most of the time the relatively low viewing figures for the programme and an increasingly apathetic population mean that a bad showing on the programme barely registers on popularity polls in the nation's consciousness.

But last week's programme was different, for obvious reasons. And this is why I found it a bit uncomfortable: it seemed to me that everyone, panellists and audience alike, had one aim before entering the studio: destroy the BNP's reputation. Maybe this is the right thing to do - maybe one hugely controversial nationwide appearance in which he gets a good thumping, and more importantly, it is nationwide news, will get rid of the rising popularity of the BNP. Signs are that this is happening. A look at the headlines on the following day's papers and the backlash from the BNP on their own leader hints that the tactic has worked. But something to me just doesn't sit quite right. In a democratic society, what is the point of having the BNP on the programme if your audience and the other panellists go into the studio knowing exactly what they're going to do? In a weird way, it seems almost no better than the fascist anti-fascists protesting outside the studio. But maybe it's for the greater good.

It's You, Web 2.0!

2009-10-14T14:44:00.004+01:00

So if you live basically anywhere you will have most likely encountered Yahoo's new advertising campaign, which focuses around 'You' being the new face/core/personality/whatever of the internet. I have struggled to find the UK-specific advertising hoardings, but here are some of the American ones, which look exactly the same, except with different models:

The campaign has cost around $100 million to finance, and you can see this on the street - it is literally EVERYWHERE in London at the moment, and from the looks of it on the web, New York has also been invaded. However, I don't want to talk about advertising financing. I want to talk about the semiotics of the piece.

The adverts are effectively a direct attempt to try and harness the 'Web 2.0' movement for Yahoo's benefit. You've all heard about this idea - the general theory is that we're in a second internet era, which is heavily based in user participation and a democratisation of the media in regards to news gatekeeping and participation. We all use the websites that are supposed to be a part of this: YouTube and any video uploading site, Flickr and the associated photo websites, Facebook and social networking, and blogs. There's more, but these are the main sites.

What Yahoo's campaign is, then, is an attempt to regain a foothold in the market, especially as their main rival, Google, beat them in the search-engine market, and then spread out into nearly every single different market within the internet. Yahoo are now attempting to do the same. This ad campaign is not just trying to drum up support for Yahoo's search engine, but for people to switch from other all-encompassing sites such as Google over to Yahoo.

Personally I think that Google has got too strong a hold on the market for Yahoo to even think of succeeding. People automatically use Google to search, and they've done well to achieve such a self-perpetuating image. When people think of making a search, they think of Google. Other smaller tactics like managing to get a Google box in the top-right hand corner of web browsers themselves makes it incredibly easy for people to simply fall into a habit of using Google. So I'm doubtful of Yahoo's success. But we'll see.

Footballing Revolution

2009-10-08T16:07:00.005+01:00

On Sunday, I turned twenty. It was one of the best birthday weekends I have ever had, involving trips to Surrey and Old Street. I took some pictures of the Saturday, but I will refrain from a post about the day until I have had a chance to develop the photos.

DISCLAIMER: If you don't like football, don't instantly ignore the following post. If you like the media, then definitely read on. But if you hate both football and media analysis, then this post REALLY isn't for you...

What I want to talk to you about today is the democratisation of the media. Recently this has become an almost over-discussed issue to the point of saturation - does the internet and relative falling profits of 'older' mass media mean that we will see a surge of democratisation within the media, mostly through the internet, in the terms of reportage as well as political dialogue through comment? Personally I have heard and debated more than most, as it is a recurrent theme in most of my modules in my media degree here at Goldsmiths.

Actually, today I will be avoiding the obvious sides of the argument, and the most discussed example, which is the world of news. No, what I want to examine is the world of sport, and most importantly and specifically, the overinflated, circus world of football (or soccer, for you non-existent American readers).

Football is, in my opinion, the best sport to examine in light of this democratised media theory, for two interrelated reasons. Firstly, the game is one of, if not, the biggest sport in the eyes of the media, and we are all aware of how important the game is in relation to satellite and cable channels, specifically Sky. If the media is being democratised, this surely must have repercussions for the game. Secondly, the game is in its own hyper-commercialised bubble. Whilst the recent global recession has meant lower prices and worth and has generally ushered in a feeling of austerity, football has continued to exist in a bizarre hyper-expensive, million (or possibly billion) pound state of perpetual cash flow. This started about six years ago with the purchase of Chelsea by a certain Russian oligarch, just before the game was about to experience a crashing of inflated prices back to low levels of cash flow. However, it inflated it. Then, last year or just before, the prices looked set to finally crash and bring the party down. However, Manchester City was then bought by a rumoured trillionaire and the party, instead of closing down, just got harder, faster, more popular, and even more bloated, culminating in the first ever £80 million pound transfer fee, and regular players regularly being paid around £40,000 a week.

People may say that this party isn't going to end anytime soon, what with the continued investment of foreign 'sugar daddys' and the increasing worldwide popularity of the game pushing television and the rest of the media to invest even more, resulting in higher fees for clubs. I, for one, do not think that it will break soon, but that it will break. The foreign investors are just that - investors. As soon as something else gains popularity and they see a chance for merchandising and investment, they will move on, and currently world-famous clubs will break and fail under a veritable mountain of unpayable debt given to them by those very same investors.

As usual, I am digressing. What I really want to discuss is how there is an almost grass-roots movement, obviously on the internet, which although it maybe isn't aware of yet, can be seen as a movement against the mass-commercialised nature of the modern game, in two media: television coverage of games themselves, and newspaper reportage of the games as well as events in the sport. I shall show you, dear reader, a few examples of both of these, and then we'll come to some sort of tentative conclusion about what this could possibly mean for the sport. Ready?

Television
Football on television falls in to roughly two categories: live broadcasting, and post-game highlights (or sometimes whole games). Live broadcasting is still the industry nominated by pay-to-view broadcasters such as Sky, the now-defunct Setanta, and the American sports broadcaster who is new to the world of football, ESPN. It is an insanely commercialised industry, with broadcasters having the power to re-arrange matches so that they have less clashes and more games to show to their subscribers, and if you ever watch the pre-game hype created by these broadcasters, it is given the impression that most of these games are on a par with a multi-million pound Hollywood epic. The irony here, of course, is that it actually is, but for a different reason. Whilst Sky may claim in their advertising that West Ham versus Blackburn Rovers on a dull, indifferent November Sunday evening is one of the most important games of all time, the fact of the matter is that the entire world of live football broadcasting is entirely important to the clubs themselves as all clubs gain an inflated slice of the television profits by being on TV - this is why the level of funding in the Premiership is so much higher than any other division below it in the UK. Post-game highlights are still basically owned by free-to-air broadcasters, and in the UK, basically means one programme: Match of the Day, and its sister Sunday show, Match of the Day 2.

And, lo and behold, on the internet, there are two important websites that do exactly the same as both these industries, but for free. In the world of live broadcasting, the plaudits must go to myp2p.eu. This website is effectively the Pirate Bay, tvshack, surfthechannel, or any video linking site on the web. In myp2p, users find the game that they want (and it isn't just football, or even sports for that matter), find the link, and open the streaming link in either an embedded video (easy if you're on a public computer), or through a piece of software, usually either SopCast or TVAnts, to name but a couple. If the game you're after is being broadcast on UK television, the stream could be this very same feed, and you're doing none other but stealing from Sky, or whoever. If it's a 3pm game on a Saturday, however, then you'll be receiving a foreign feed from literally any country that's showing it, whether it be Holland, Canada, the US, literally anywhere. NB: the reason for this, I think, is that it is illegal for a Saturday 3pm match to be shown on UK television (however, I could be wrong on this, so don't take my word for it, and googlesearch the issue).

If, however, you're looking for highlights, then go no further than footytube. The clue's in the title - this is the football version of YouTube. Practically EVERY professional game recently played around the world has highlights on the web. Most of the highlights are there no longer than two weeks to a month, because they're uploaded to youtube, myspace, vimeo etc etc etc and are thus deleted after a while, but most, if not all of the users visit the site for the latest games at the weekend or midweek. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself. Find a game that's been played in the last week and search for it. It will be there. Or, if you want, log in midday on any Sunday during the season, and all the games played the day before in the UK will be there, the football directly ripped from the previous evening's Match of the Day, then thrown on the internet. I should stress, however, that neither of these websites OWN the footage, and they are not responsible for what their users upload to the site.

This, arguably, has massive, MASSIVE repercussions for the sport. Television gives football, and most of the clubs who don't have a rich owner, much needed money with which to finance their debts, and buy the latest players who will hopefully guarantee their continued existence. And if the two main areas of football broadcasting are being what you can't claim is anything other but subjected to piracy, it threatens the game itself. Now, the realists amongst you will quite rightly point out that there are so many paid-up subscribers to the television broadcasters that the minority stealing the feed is negligible, and that the time between these sites starting before being closed down stops any larger-than-large audience that would threaten television from building up, and you would be right, and I agree with you - we all know how long websites offering free Family Guy or whatever last for. But what these sites are showing is that we are forgetting what this sport is for. It is NOT about making money from showing off someone else's natural ability. It is about enjoying the sport purely for the sake of enjoying the sport, and if that means some executive at Sky gets a slightly smaller bonus, I think it's worth it. Don't confuse these websites with genuine contenders of football audiences. They have a purely theoretical, altruistic use.

Newspapers/Football Journalism
Newspapers have been the harshest-hit media when it comes to falling audience levels and profit. The image of papers as an 'old' media, combined with the instantness of 24-hour news channels and news websites that are free has resulted in the death of more than a couple outlets. If you read my piece on the Evening Standard, I remarked that the sport section was comprised almost entirely out of comment and opinion, and that this was because there is no longer a need for newspapers to report the facts when it comes to football, and that they are trying to latch on to the recent rise in football blogs that have just as well-written comment and opinion, and its sometimes less sensationalist, and more often a little bit cleverer.

I'm an Arsenal fan, so I'll use Arsenal blogs to highlight my point. If you head over to Arsenal World, you'll see that it's an insanely up-to-date unoffical website offering all things Arsenal as they happen. Not only that, if you scroll down on the home page, you'll see a box entitled 'Latest newsfeed direct from NewsNow'. This isn't content from Arsenal World, no. This is content collated from the entire blogosphere, that has been tagged with Arsenal-related tags. Half of it is existing news outlets, but many, many many of them are amateur blogs just like this one that talk about Arsenal. And here they are, alongside major news companies! This may seem incredible, but it gets better. At the top right hand corner of the home page, you'll see a logo for something called 'Footymad.net'. Click on it. Yes, your eyes don't deceive you. Arsenal World is NOT a self-run website. It is purely one branch of footymad, which has a website for nearly every single UK professional football club. And they're all like the Arsenal one, with more blogs linking from that.

Again, like television, I don't know if this truly threatens the existing mass media news outlets, and it is possibly likely that the outlets will use their existing economic power to pre-empt the sites and buy them all up, and just conglomerate the amateur press into their own, thus leading to a fake democratic media. But it could just keep building, and the old media could die, leading to an organic, individualistic internet media that would mean a hugely expansive marketplace of ideas, not just in football, but the wider world of journalism. Time will tell.

The New Age of Austerity and Ink Drawings

2009-10-07T18:06:00.005+01:00

I'm sure most of you are aware that the 2009 Conservative Party Conference is currently taking place, and the whole circus has been given much more publicity than the Labour one, possibly because of the perceived swing in popularity towards the opposition Tories. I think it's fair to say that most people are of the opinion that the Conservatives will win the new election, even if most people aren't fearless enough to admit voting for them.

The Conservatives' Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, delivered his key speech on Monday. Click here for the entire speech.

This article basically sums the key parts of the speech up, in which Osborne made three key statements. The main point was a one-year pay freeze for over 5 million public sector workers who earn over £18,000 a year. Public service workers who are in this plus-£18,000 pay bracket include nurses, firefighters, teachers, police officers, GPs, judges, and dentists. Osborne has basically made a massive gamble by possibly alienating what has long been seen as the 'heroic' world of employment.

Osborne is an incredibly aggressive politician. He has been one of the most vocal opponents of Gordon Brown, and is not afraid to 'bend the truth' about the Prime Minister. Channel 4's 'FactCheck', which was used on a scale of 1 to 5 on how based in truth politicans' claims were (1 being factual, 5 being a complete embellishment), Osborne has scored 4 out of 5 on a few occasions.

Anyway, I digress. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the proposals (more on that later), I have a slight problem with a Conservative lecturing the nation on how 'we're all in this together' and that we all need to 'tighten our belts'. I will refrain from bullet-pointing the hypocricy in this statement by listing all of Osborne's controversies in the past, but I will surmise. This is a man who is an heir of the Ascendancy, which, for those of you who don't know, is the old Anglo-Irish aristrocracy (wikipedia it), and who was educated at Oxford and was previously called Gideon. Does he seem such a valid part of Cameron's touchy-feely 'nice' Tories now? Did you know, for instance, that in both 2006 AND 2007, Osborne attended the Bilderberg Group meeting? And separate from his quite frankly upper class background and lifestyle, this is the man who is still being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over his expenses, met with a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska (who happens to be the richest man in Russia) to get a £50,000 donation, and threatened economical stability in the name of public opinion by saying that there would be a 'run on the pound' precisely because of the actions of his opponent Gordon Brown.

I am still undecided about whether or not I agree with his proposals, but this is beside the issue. I do not believe for one second that Osborne dislikes public sector workers, and the opposite is probably the case once you consider the that firefighters/police/nurses/teachers are often compared to be on a par with servicemen in terms of doing a service for the country, and this is a staple of conservative (with a small 'c') thought. But never, ever forget that this is not an attack on the public service workers themselves - it is an attack on public spending, and by definition, a defence of free-market economics, lassez-faire government, and generally trying to 'recover' the economy by pulling out of it. And depending on whether or not you agree with this political viewpoint, you would have either loved Osborne's speech or hated it. Or you're like me, and so sick of the to-and-fro nature of modern-day politics that you think it doesn't really make a difference anymore, and couldn't really care less. Shame, that!

___________________________________________________________________

On another, completely different political level, have you seen Carla Bruni's drawings? They were posted on her newly-launched website, which was so popular on the day of its launch, that it crashed.

Anyway, if you go to the gallery part of her website, there are shitloads of drawings of various public figures. Take a look for yourself. To name but a few that have been drawn: Charles & Camilla, Bono, Geldof, Dylan, Obama & Michelle, Sarah Brown (why?!), David Lynch (equally as mystifying), and others.

I don't quite understand it, or Bruni herself, for that matter. Who is she? Is she the topless model of her youth? Is she the tenderly voiced singer-songwriter that managed to have a song featured on uber-hip man-chick-flick 500 Days of Summer (yes, indie fans, that really cool French acoustic song is performed by none other than the First Lady of France)? Is she the Diana of the 2000s? Or is she some sort of Arts London student, judging by the drawings? Answers on a trendily designed postcard, please.

Spotlight On: The London Evening Standard

2009-10-05T20:18:00.003+01:00

The Standard is an enigma. It is, arguably, a key part of London society and culture, partly because of it's omnipresence across London anytime from about 2pm onwards. For as long as I can remember, it has always been around, and you'd be hard pressed to find any common Londoner who isn't aware of it.

Recently, though, the Standard has come under fire from various areas. The rise and rise of the free papers such as the Metro, London Lite and the sadly now-defunct London Paper, matched with the greater presence of freepaper distributors at about five locations around each and every Tube station in the central London area has unfortunatley combined with the wider decreasing readership for most, if not all, established newspapers and magazines. If you combine this with the almost Daily Mail-esque tabloid/broadsheet hybrid style and conservative sensationalist repotage, the fact that the Standard was bought for literally just £1 (yeah, you read that correctly) because it loses a couple of million on a regular basis, and the fact that most young people prefer to read things either online or from the freepapers, and things don't look too rosy for the paper.

In light of this, and the impending launch of the Standard as a free paper from the 12th October, I think it's time to take a closer look at the Standard, and so on my way back to Maidstone today I picked up today's issue. Let's see what we get...

The first thing that hit me after digesting today's issue was how the Standard has fallen into a vacuous hole in regards to its design. The first half of the paper looks very, very similar to the Mail and this is easier to understand once you realise that the reportage and political and social bias is actually very similar to that of the Mail, except with less emphasis on anti-immigration, which isn't hard to understand, what with London being composed of a large portion of ethnic minorities. Instead, the Standard concentrates on other, slightly less hard-hitting conservative staples, such as the expenses scandal, the lack of 'common sesnse' and the perceived rise of 'bureaucracy', and negative, depressing stories that all mass media news outlets report as some sort of damming incitement on the downward spiral the entire human race is apparently caught in; but, like the Mail, the Standard twists the stories to reflect badly either on Labour or generally create a feeling of conservatism in the reader. The second half of the paper, basically the Sport section, is designed completely differently. It is more akin to the Guardian in its style, with a Sans-Serif font and a lot of sidebars here and there with public opinion and bitesize quotes, comment, and opinion. The whole section is heavy on opinion columns, which is an increasing trend in sport sections. I will write more on this later as I'm still formulating ideas, but the increasing 'democratisation' of the sport world (and particularly football) through blogging and pirate feeds of live football has meant that this blogging style is more apparent in newspapers, for twofold reason: firstly, that the totalisation of reporting of things that have actually happened (i.e.: the facts) is so covered by websites and television means that opinion is the only 'new' thing to report, and that secondly, newspapers are trying to latch on to making the public feel as if 'public opinion' is a large part of their publication as the rise of what has been called 'Web 2.0' continues unabated.

As a newspaper, the Standard is resorting to tactics that you can see if you open practically any large newspaper, which roughly translates to 'soft' news being much more present. By 'soft' news I am referring to any of the following: music, film, opera, or dance reviews, lighthearted human stories that concentrate on the 'ahhhhhh' factor, lifestyle pieces, or comment pieces that read as lifestyle, but are actually referring to a current news event - in the case of today's issue, it was on the postal strike and its associated problems. For example, the major news that a socialist party has won a snap election in Greece, a story which is interesting in itself once you consider that a rise in conservatism is the current trend for most European countries (see: the UK, Germany's recent election) was almost a quarter of a page on page 14, whereas an article slightly mocking this year's Turner Prize nominees (an annual staple of the conservative media - mock modern art as it is 'indicative of the topsy-turvy world of the liberal arts' (that' not a direct quote)) was the main article on page 3.

There's not really much to say. The Standard is exactly the same as the other major newspapers, except that it can take one last gamble that, if you ask me at least, is a long way off for all the national papers - turn into a freepaper. Ironically enough, it is precisely because of the increased competition from the original freepapers that means the Standard has an opportunity to turn a new leaf and engage with a new group of readers that have previously ignored the paper - both young, cash-strapped students, and cash-strapped minorities who work for little money across the city. This can be, and I think probably is, being watched by the major newspapers as an experiment for established news sources. I'm interested in what will happen, and you should be too - this could change the way we think of newspapers not just in London, but across the UK, and if it affects the imperialist UK enough, the ripples could be felt worldwide.

2009-10-05T20:06:00.004+01:00

A couple of pictures from the Sweet Billy Pilgrim promo shoot that I did last week.

They were taken by the banjo/bass player, Bish. The rest of the pictures he took are on SBP's flickr page, you should check them out.

Sweet Billy Pilgrim shoot/Freshers' week/New Tube map

2009-10-02T15:48:00.011+01:00

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything here. I didn’t think anyone really noticed/cared/was bothered (delete as appropriate) but a few people actually brought it up, so I am indebted to them. The reason for my absence from the blog is a combination of being too busy with fresher’s events as well as college, sorting out my house and whatnot, and not having either a computer or internet with which to access the internet. So here, just for you, invisible audience, is an extended update.

Last Sunday I went to Buckinghamshire with Gavin to shoot some promotional shots for a band called Sweet Billy Pilgrim. I only know of them through Gavin, but apparently they were nominated for this year’s Mercury Award, which is quite frankly a massive thing. Basically, instead of helping out with the post-production, which is what I did for the Mark Ronson behind-the-scenes video, I was instead helping out production-wise, which basically meant: camerawork.

The band themselves are really fucking nice guys, which sounds like a generalized cliché, but really isn’t. The bass/banjo player, Bish, also plays with sometime indie darlings The Boy Least Likely To, who I still listen to today.

The day roughly meant me getting up at 7am to get to Gavin’s after a 3am ending to the previous evening at Plastic People (rating: underwhelming) for Jess’s birthday. After getting to his for breakfast we left his house for the sunny sights of Buckinghamshire, picking up Bish on the way. I’ll come onto my thoughts on the county and West London a bit later, but most of the day was spent playing the same two live tracks over and over again and filming the band with a three camera setup miming along, to be edited into a promo at some point in the future. I think we used about nine DV tapes by the end of the day. It was just a good way to gain experience in the production side of things, and once again I’m glad that Gavin has thought of me and offered me the chance to get some much-valued experience that most other media and film students have to really work for.

The shoot was in the middle of Buckinghamshire, in the Chiltern Hills, near the town of Amersham. If you ever get the chance to go to Buckinghamshire and/or specifically the Chilterns, go. Trust me. I’d never been before and it is likely that I would never actively choose to visit them, but driving through them at 10am on a sunny day is beautiful. The house we were filming in was on the top of one of the hills, in a slight valley. It was the most stunning domestic view I’d ever seen.

Contrasting to this was the necessary negotiating of the major roads of West London. We all know that Notting Hill is tree-lined avenues, and is so gentrified that it’s one of the few places in London where the trees connect overhead. But far-West London is ridiculous. I’m referring to the areas surrounding the Westfield shopping centre and Park Royal, those sorts of areas. They are exactly the same as LA, to the point of ridiculousness. The newly constructed Westfield is slap-bang surrounded by freeways and overpasses, and is horribly Americanised.

Anyway, enough of Sunday. Today is Friday, and the end of Freshers’ Fortnight here in New Cross and most of London. It has been most excellent. I will refrain from an in-depth discussion of every evening, mainly because it bores both me and you, and because most clubs are just the same as everyone else. So here is a list. In the last fortnight I have been to:

Goldsmiths SU – Freshers’ Welcome Party/Pound a Pint Tuesdays/Club Sandwich
Punk – Bite
The Den & Centro – Skint Mondays
Plastic People
Corsica Studios – Off Modern

We’ll ignore GSU and Punk, as I’ve gone on about them far too much more than can be deemed acceptable, and Plastic People is just underwhelming, although I did leave early with Oliver, and I heard the others had a good night.

You may have heard of the Den & Centro before, but not have been aware of it – this is because it was previously deemed to be the third-best club in London known as The End. It hosted such nights as BuggedOut! And DURRRR, and I had the pleasure of experiencing my first ever night out in London there to see none other than Boys Noize, last September, which remains to this day one of the best nights out ever.

Sometime last year The End was bought by property developers, much to the chagrin of hundreds of students and fans of indie and electro. Long story short, the property development bombed, and the people who had forked out multi-millions to buy the property promptly re-branded the club as The Den (note the anagram) and the side-club Centro. What they have effectively done is turned something from one of the brightest and most exciting clubs in London into just another studenty Soho club, much like The Roxy, or Madame Jojo’s, or Moonlighting, just MUCH more mainstream. The three rooms were playing as follows: cheese & ‘student anthems’, R&B and urban, and in the third room was Hedkandi anthems.

The night itself promised ‘all you can drink’ for a £15 entry fee, and so seemed like a safe bet for drunkenness, if not good music. However, due to the death of a UCL fresher the previous evening at Koko which was originally presumed by the media (mostly the Daily Mail) to be alcohol-related (It now emerges that it was probably a heart attack, but the damage was done), Camden Borough Council (which include the Soho area) then advised The Den to pull the ‘all you can drink’ promotion, which meant £5 entry, but still cheap, cheap drinks. Which it was. I got so drunk and was in pain for most of the day afterwards.

Yesterday night brought the first Off Modern of the year at Elephant & Castle’s Corsica Studios, which basically feels like a slightly more organized house party. Studios used to host Chew the Fat!, but after the shambles of entry in the infamous non-show of Fake Blood, it moved to the far more music-appropriate Arches in London Bridge. Anyway, I had a good night. It was too busy so I didn’t drink as much as I wanted to, but I saw everyone who I expected to see and had a pretty good time.

Before I go, I think there’s just enough time for something a bit less pointless, and a bit more media-based. Last month, Transport for London changed the Tube map. I agree with this in principle – the current map was far too cluttered, some interchanges looked like they were on different lines and it was generally difficult to read if you didn’t have a basic understanding of London geography:

What TfL did was to simplify some of the interchanges, remove the travelcard-zone shading in the background, and remove the Thames. Promptly, there was outrage, across message boards, opinion pages of the paper, and reactionary headlines on all London-based papers. Why? Just take a look at the new map for a second:

In my opinion, this map is far more useful. The simplifying of interchanges is the best improvement, seeing as it was the biggest difficulty in the old map. The removing of the zones is useful (but sneaky – if they remove the zones it means they’re either trying to shift the zones in an unpopular way or alter the price ranges for each zone, which would be unpopular whatever the change was) because a simple white background means the lines are much more clean-cut and easier to track.

Most of the outrage stemmed from the fact that TfL had removed the Thames from the map. Why? I know it is a London landmark, and one of the biggest at that, and could also be used by people as a starting point, but it’s just a landmark. The argument is illogical – if we HAVE to have the Thames on the map, why not other tourist traps? Why not any museum, gallery, or park? Why not stadia like Twickenham, Wembley, Emirates, White Hart Lane, or Stamford Bridge? Why not major roads? And if we’re really serious about having a geographical natural landmark on our map, why not superimpose the entire London metropolis underneath the Tube lines instead of travelcard zones, or even as well as the zones? Having a geographical landmark, and particularly one with such a well-known defined shape, is problematic with the Tube map, as, as everyone knows, the map is ridiculously un-true to the actual locations of lines and stations in regards to the others:

So that’s my rant, and my update over.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

2009-09-17T21:54:00.003+01:00

Jesus fucking Christ.
I just watched THE scariest trailer, ever:

I've researched it on the internet. Apparently it's been made for three long years, for just under $11,000 in a week (!), and has finally been picked up by Paramount.

I don't want to see it. I don't like horror films at the best of times, and from what I'v read on blogs and messageboards is that this is one of the scariest films ever made, and that a film has finally arrived that will become 'the' horror film for the detatched, screen-obsessed demystified twenty-first century.

There is some confusion on the internet as to what the ending is, and there are various stories flying about. What I could deduce is that there are definitely two different endings that have been screened, maybe three, or even possibly four. There's also a rumour that Paramount have had a hand in changing the ending, but even then, there's conflicting stories about which ending is the original. I have read ALL of it, so if you want to see the movie 'cold', look away now.

*****SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS*****

The film centres around a couple who think there is a ghost, or something similar, haunting them, and so set up a camera, as you can see in the trailer, and that things do indeed start happening (fucking freaky shit at that).

Now, this is where the stories change.

One source has claimed that in one ending, the woman kills her husband off-screen, and then returns to the shot, and sits by the bed, rocking, for hours. Phonecalls and visitors (all in a worried tone) are ignored, and eventually the police come into shot. She gets up, still covered in blood with the butcher's knife she used to kill her husband, and starts wandering towards the police, who open fire. The film ends.

Another claims that in the film, in a night scene, the couple are sleeping. Suddenly, the girl sits right up completely rigid, gets up, walks around the bed, and stands looking down on her sleeping husband for hours. Eventually she goes downstairs out of shot. Screaming can then be heard, and the husband awakes, screaming that he will 'help', and runs downstairs. More screaming is heard, and eventually she comes back upstairs into the bedroom in shot, walking very rigid-ly, covered in blood and carrying a butcher's knife. She walks right up to the camera so that you cannot see her face but her midriff from the neck down. With that, she gracefully cuts her own throat and the film ends.

There are other statements. One claims that (and I am not entirely sure how this works), it changes so that it is like WE are the demon, or that the camera is the eyes of the demon. If you ask me, this sounds more like a connoted reading instead of a literal account, and is more likely a comment on how the film works to comment on our society in a screen-based culture, and how everything is turned to entertainment. Another source claims that the 'changed' ending involves the demon's face being a part of the girl's face, and the general feeling is that this is much more 'Hollywood' and generally not as good. This could possibly fit in with the second ending, with the kitchen scene.

Overall, it's very confusing. Most of the accounts are on various Google blogs like this one, but I'm afraid I have lost the links. Either Google search for it, or do what I did, and trawl the IMDB messageboards. The first link to the blogs came from there.

**********SPOLIERS OVER**********

DV horror is finally taking off. Have you seen the trailer for The Fourth Kind? Shit's looking good.

On Adebayor

2009-09-13T16:08:00.002+01:00

I have thought long and hard about what I have to say in the aftermath of Arsenal's acrimonious 4-2 defeat at the hands of Middle-Eastern trillionaires and their overpaid, overrated mercenries (otherwise known as Manchester City). And I just can't. It just makes me very, very angry.

Firstly, for those of you who are not of a footballing disposition, I give you the match highlights, and then the two main moments which make any Arsenal fan angrier than any defeat usually would - Adebayor's stamp on Robin van Persie, and then his celebration after scoring against us, in which he sprinted 90 yards, to the opposite end of the pitch, to taunt the visiting Arsenal fans in the corner of the stadium:

Manchester City v Arsenal
by leslery

If you're not aware of the history between Adebayor and Arsenal, I will give you a run-down: Arsenal bought Adebayor as a practically un-known Togolese international player about two and a half seasons ago. He had an insanely successful first season at Arsenal, which resulted in the interests of AC Milan and FC Barcelona in the summer immeadiately afterwards. After saying he wanted to go and basically throwing Arsenal, Arsene Wenger, and the Arsenal fans away, he was forced to stay, and then embarked on a season-long whinge where he basically refused to even attempt to help the team in a tough period, which (understandably in my opinion) led to sections of the Arsenal fans jeering him. When you consider how he was so quickly prepared to leave our club, which had given him his big break, and then was forced to leave and made it evident he did not wish to be there, you can understand our frustrations.

Eventually, though, Adebayor left for Manchester City this summer, and embarked on the most bitter and antagonistic PR campaign I've ever seen a player take part in. He critised Arsene Wenger, the club itself, other players, and also the fans. If you consider that Wenger is held in high esteem by most people in the footballing world, it made Adebayor look like a selfish idiot, and he continued to claim that he didn't move 'for the money', even though he got one HELL of a pay-rise by moving to City, and in the very same interview, complained about Arsenal by moaning that when he moved from Metz, we didn't give him 'a pound more'. Hypocrisy, stupidity and greed seem to be different sides of the same songsheet, apparently.

If you think about Arsenal fans, we're not that crazy. We don't have an ultra-violent 'firm', we don't fight with stewards, and we generally respect the game, and we're not the loudest of fans either - we don't need to be. Our football speaks enough so we don't have to - there's a reason shit teams like Stoke have the loudest fans. Think about this when you see the celebration video. For ONE man to make Arsenal fans behave like they did, to throw anything they can lay their hands on at him, to the extent where in the melee a female steward was knocked unconscious, and you can gain an idea of how much this man is hated. I am going to go out on a limb here - if I had been in the front row of Arsenal fans on Saturday, I would have gladly accepted the lifetime ban from any football ground in the UK in order to break through the cordon and physically assault the classless prick. And I am NOT a violent man.

Anyway, yesterday was a bitter pill to swallow as an Arsenal fan, when the context of this story is considered. I will let 'Iron Man' from the blog Arsenal Vision surmise, as his views are indicitive of most, if not all, Arsenal fans at the moment:

'There's been enough column inches dedicated to this man already so I'll try and keep it as brief as I can. On his performance: Up until a point in the second half when he went on a fantastic mazy run that could have resulted in one of the goals of the season, I felt he was poor (naturally the goal galvanised him and shock, horror, he was actually tracking back and defending for them). Despite his goal, i'm still not at all disappointed that we got shot of him. I don't think we are significantly worse off without him and we should have zero regrets about his departure. Yes, he scored but Arsenal have ALWAYS conceded goals against former players. From Nic Anelka to Paul Dickov to Kanu to Aliadaire, it was inevitable and no indication of whether we should have kept him/them or not. On his conduct: Whatever you think of him as player, there's no denying that as a human being, the man is pure scum. Sniping at the Arsenal fans, the club and the players (most of which were outright lies) in the press is one thing but to go out on the pitch and deliberately (in my eyes at least) set out to hurt both Cesc and Robin just shows what kind of a 'man' he is. One one occasion he even cynically went in on his 'brother' Alex Song who was so angry that he lashed out and received a yellow card for his troubles. Then there was the celebration. Admittedly, we cant get on our high horse too much about it given that our very own Thierry Henry (a REAL Arsenal legend) did the exact same thing to Sp*rs way back when. But once again, it shows how much of a classless cunt he is. Fair enough if you are frustrated at the fans but his behaviour showed the utmost disrespect to Arsene Wenger. The man who found him, showed patience with him and ultimately, MADE him into the player that he is. His shameless 'apology' afterwards (clearly after having been told to by his manager) was so insincere I almost vomited in disgust. Mind you, I think he put more effort into that sprint than he did in his time for the gunners.

I hear now that the FA are 'looking at' his conduct. I doubt there would be much sympathy if he received a lengthy ban – nor if he snapped his cruciate ligament.... or involved in a car crash... I'm not sure if I'm joking or not here...

I honestly wish I could erase his history at Arsenal. I don't want to have to remember that I ever cheered for this man. He's dead to me.'

Literally, everything in that piece above is exactly my opinion. It's disgusting how that he has actually decided to make an effort in City's first four games, and that has probably made more of an effort in them than he did in an entire, 40-game long season for the Arsenal.

I, personally, am waiting for mid-season, when the rain comes and the pitches detoriate, and City have to struggle against a ten-man defensive line, and then them and their fans will see what type of a player Adebayor really is. And, on the 24th April, Manchester City and Adebayor will visit us at Emirates, and I dread to think what the reaction will be.

It's tough to take. It's not the defeat that annoys me, it's just him.

-

2009-09-12T19:19:00.003+01:00

Does anyone find it weird when boys are more attractive than their girlfriends?

If Freud was still alive he'd probably say I have some sort of complex from the above statement, but I don't care. It's fucking weird, okay?

Photolog

2009-09-12T18:42:00.003+01:00

Alexa's birthday party, and the Loft 08/09/09

FFS

2009-09-07T13:12:00.002+01:00

I give you the latest offering from the Gregory Brothers in their Auto-Tune the News series. The music's funny, the lyrics are intelligent and witty, and it features a bangin' vocoder track. What's different, might you say? Oh, nothing at all, except it features Alexa Chung. Yeah you heard me right, Alexa fucking Chung, it girl, C4 presenter, and generally the subject of most boys' wet dreams for the last three years (apologies for my vulgarity, but it's true).

I am disappointed with ATTN for doing this. Why is she in it? Does she add anything whatsoever to the video, except for a rather large slice of awkwardness and cringe-worthy dancing which does not add to the irony already present in all of the previous videos? No, she does not. It just seems to me to be a pointless bit of celebrity endorsement. I think it is clear to most of us that this is the inevitable beginning-of-the-end for ATTN as a genuinely funny series. I bet you anything that this is picked up by most major media outlets and pumped for cash until it is absolutely bled dry, and the videos, instead of being genuinely funny and low-budget, become full of pointless endorsements and inane blabbering, marketed for a mass-audience.

You only had to look at ATTN #8 to see the pointlessness seeping into it: ridiculous edits and gratuitous use of their clearly recently updated greenscreen technology, and blatant advertising of the auto-tune iPhone application (although the back-referencing and cameo of none other than T-Pain himself rather redeems this one):

Also, have you heard the new Muse tracks? Fucking bangin'

06/09/2009

2009-09-06T16:59:00.005+01:00

Further to my earlier post, I bring you an example that has a two-fold use.

Click here to read the article

This is the most pointless, un-argued, completely hypocritical piece of so-called 'journalism' that I have seen in a long, long time. I know that this is the Mirror that we're talking about, and so we can't really expect a well-argued piece of writing, but Jesus. Stan doesn't explain or justify his opinions, and just states them like a uniqely uneducated sheep, and on top of this, is being completely hypocritical and biased.

Seriously, I can't explain how bad this article is. It dumbfounds me to the extent where I actually can't put my feelings into words. Just click on it, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

_________________________________________________________

Today I saw the trailer for Whip It!, the directorial debut of Drew Barrymore. It stars her alongside Ellen Page, who seems to playing exactly the same character as in every other movie she's starred in.

Apparently, her character is called 'Bliss'. This just smacks of Fox Searchlight Hollywood indie to me. I enjoyed (500) Days of Summer but seriously, the whole clever character name thing is wearing thin on me. The advet also features Jens Lekman's Your Arms Around Me, played completely out of context. Gaaaaaah. From looking at the trailer I think I can guess exactly how the plot is going to play out. I won't patronise you by listing each predictable plot development.

_________________________________________________________

Also, check out this advert. It's fucking rad.

Esquire video

2009-09-05T17:33:00.005+01:00

So yesterday, the behind-the-scenes Mark Ronson video for Esquire that I have been editing was uploaded to Esquire's website (click here to see the video within the website).

The point of the video was to convey the workings of an entire day in a photoshoot for a major magazine. My part of the editing process was to choose the little close-ups that cut inbetween the two main panels. It required me to reel (pun intended?) through ages of rushes and cut them into eight-frame, or thereabout, clips, and edit them together, and then to place them in the right place. If you watch carefully, the close-ups actually match chronologically with what's happening in the main two panels. It was time-consuming and fiddly but I am damn well thankful for Gavin letting me play such a large part in the creation of such a video.

Note: You need quite a good computer to run this video smoothly, most of the shots are really high-res and as such, my computer at home can't keep up with it. If the close ups aren't smooth then it's not playing correctly, and it may lag, and you may miss little cutaways. It really is that tightly edited. Sorry!

(PS. Check out 01:50)

Adwipe #2

2009-09-04T17:27:00.004+01:00

This week:

I have seen this popping up on portrait advertising hordings everywhere recently. Remember the Strongbow advert I talked about a while ago, with the absurd (possibly ironic) nationalistic undertones? This is exactly the same.

If you do media (or indeed, if you don't), please can you tell me if you think this has a level of irony contained in it or not, and why? I just can't tell anymore, the blurring of lines between knowing whether something was clever and knowing, and pure base-level nationalism and a lack of irony has seriously confused me. At first you see the nationalistic anti-gailic message, and the absurdly heroic pose struck by Chris Hoy, as well as the flag draped in the background, and you think: jesus. The people of Britain really have no idea, do they? It seems as if we're slowly becoming one long, extended piece from Top Gear.

But then I stopped and thought: this is Chris Hoy, an intelligent, well-spoken man, and this is Bran Flakes, one of the more 'serious' brands around, and not usually taken to advertising in such a way.

So yeah, I just can't tell irony anymore. Seems the media's fucked, somebody phone the emergency services...

Self-absorbed backlash

2009-09-04T13:53:00.007+01:00

Speaking in today's Daily Telegraph, Wayne Rooney claimed in light of the recent diving saga that "everyone who watches me play knows I am an honest player''. I'm sorry, Wayne. What?

For me, this has summed up everything that has happened in the last two weeks, ever since Eduardo's theatrics against Celtic. If you know me, you know that I adore football. I always have, I still do, and it is probable that if out of everything I like and enjoy now, I could only choose one thing to keep with me until the end of my days, I would probably choose the sport. But the last fortnight has been a tough one, not just for me as an Arsenal fan, but for anyone who is a fan of this game.

I know Eduardo dived, and so does everyone else. Yes, there was a degree of contact between him and the goalkeeper, but it was a dive. Simple as. It is just frustrating for me, as an Arsenal fan, that the most surreal, hypocritical, self-congratulating zealous backlash to occur in recent years in football has started at my own club.

Whether or not you agree with Eduardo's two-game ban, the hypocrisy is perhaps the most sickening point of it. For the record, I agree with UEFA's decision to ban Eduardo, but only (and I emphasise only) if UEFA consistently use retrospective evidence. Wenger, whether you love him or hate him, had a point: in justice, you do not punish one crime and be done with it. When you set a precedent (and an ill-advised, quickly executed one at that), you must carry it through and be consistent. Everyone can see it except UEFA, and perhaps the Scottish FA, who were so quick to decry Eduardo as a cheat and a liar. Will ANY of the numerous players who have gotten away with footballing murder in the last two weeks receive a two-match ban? I doubt it.

No, the shor-sightedness and selective hypocrisy is the hardest pill to swallow. Whether it's Celtic or the Scottish FA, who were the first to call for Eduardo's retrospective punishment, and then blindly defend their own player who was sent off for diving the game after Eduardo dived, or UEFA, who seem to have a simple lack of knowledge or understanding when it comes to simple theories regarding crime and punishment, or even my own club, Arsenal, who join the 'Fair Play' campaign, then rail against punishment when this sense of play has been broken, or even our very own Wayne Rooney, who (in the eyes of the English press at least) won a 'clear' penalty when brought down by Almunia even though, hey, he was already halfway towards the ground when he was touched, and then, a week later, has the guts to claim that above absurdity when everyone knows and remembers his dive against Arsenal about four years ago that broke the longest unbeaten run English football has ever seen and represented a victory for deceit over open, attacking football.

This is a dive.

And so is this. But apparently not?

The day after the Manchester United vs Arsenal match, where the above 'foul' on Wayne Rooney was given, a paper (I can't remember which) raised the interesting proposition. Eduardo is a Brazillian-Croatian, who deceived a Scottish team. Rooney is an England international. Is there a conflict of interest? And to that I say yes, there is. The narcissism in the footballing world that I have described is not just limited to those inside the game. It extends to the reportage as well. If Eduardo was English and Celtic were a German team, and Rooney was Spanish and Almunia was English, would it have been the other way around? Think of players in the modern game who are widely thought of as divers:

Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast)
Christiano Ronaldo (Portugal)
Robert Pires (France)
and now Eduardo (Brazil-Croatia)

And now think of their English counterparts:
Wayne Rooney
Michael Owen

The two England players are not seen as divers. They are described regularly as two of England's best attacking players, praising their footballng intelligence, importance to the national side, and their ability to score goals. But both English players have dived, sometimes in the most important games. Remember Rooney's dive to end Arsenal's 49-game unbeaten run? Was he fined? Was he hell. And in the 2002 World Cup, Owen dived to win a penalty with which England defeated Argentina. Was there a national backlash? Not in the slightest. When England/UK dives for England/UK's benefit, it seems in the eyes of the national press to be A-OK. When foreigners dive at the expense of the English or United Kingdom, it seems to be equitable to murder. You do the math.

I will always enjoy football. But it is incredibly hard to defend the sport when it is clear to everyone that all the people involved the very same sport are hypocritical, inconsistent narcissists. Shame, football. Shame on you.

02/10/2009

2009-09-02T16:10:00.005+01:00

I have many things to write about, having not really given this blog the time of day in light of more important matters, such as going out, the Carnival, and the other blog. Additionally, I have been in my new house in New Cross for a while and the lack of internet there puts matters beyond my control.

At the weekend I went to the Carnival for the first time. After my experiences I can somewhat safely say that it is pretty much nothing like the media make it out to be. My original understanding of the Carnival was that it was two days of people dressed up in Rio de Janeiro-esque carnival ware, whilst petty criminals and troublemakers went out their unsavoury business. And, if you look at any of the countless photo albums that are now on most news websites, all the photos are just photos of parades and a thousand different colours. Maybe I just missed it (seeing as I only rocked up on Sunday at 4pm and didn't even make it to Monday's festivities) but I didn't see any of this.

No, my experience of the Carnival was as follows: we arrived at Notting Hill Gate tube via bus at about 4pm, maybe 5pm. The streets were busy and a bit messy, but my overwhelming sense was one of a party that is threatening, somewhat excitingly, to spiral way out of control. We then proceeded to the heart of the Carnival, and it was simply fucking WICKED. If you've ever been to a music festival you'll know what I mean - when there's just a huge, uncountable amount of people in one place, music everywhere, everyone is drunk, and people are just having a wicked time, and there's litter. Everywhere.

We stopped at the corner of Portobello Rd. and (I think) it was Algin Crescent, where the Duke of Wellington pub is. They had an outside sound system from the people at Oi You! playing a mixture of house, dancehall, and a teeny little bit of dub. We stayed there for about three to four hours drinking and smoking and dancing away, and my main mood for the entirety of it was one of awe; of thousands and thousands and people just coming to West London and having a good time.

We wandered around a bit longer, but then decided to hotfoot it over to East, where we knew nights were on. The Old Blue, which was one of the venues hosting the South East in East festival, was quite quiet, and to even get in to the SEIE upstairs section, you needed to pay £4. Considering this, and the fact that I knew that Sam's Dekheds night was on at Catch (and was free), we started to move, bumping into Toby and Dan on the way. The others all went home, citing tiredness, but I decided to stay seeing as loads of my friends from Maidstone had rocked up. Looking back I don't remember much of the night, but all I know is that a) I had a wicked time, and b) the music was sick. I spent much of the night with Cami, who I met at Melt! Festival and hadn't seen properly since. Always good to catch up.

On the Bank Holiday Monday that followed, I worked on the Mark Ronson Esquire video. Me and Gavin finally got it finished, and it should be online soon enough. More to follow. After this I went to Punk, and got drunk all over again. I will refrain from giving you a blow-by-blow account of the evening, but I ended up at the end of the evening with a box of cookies that I did not even want. But I'm not one to shy away from a challenge, so I did what I could only do, and ate them all.

Editin' and crusin'

2009-08-27T16:32:00.002+01:00

It's been a wicked couple of days, yeah it has.

I've been up and around London for a bit. Mostly I have been editing a behind-the-scenes video of a Mark Ronson photoshoot for Esquire magazine. The video will go on their website, and is soundtracked by the new Rumble Strips song, Not the Only Person. I always found them a bit underwhelming, but the new stuff is produced by Mark Ronson (thus it being used on the video and him doing promo stuff, seeing as he's one of those super-producer thingys), and I have to say it's quite good:

http://open.spotify.com/track/6lw8PIytlalgvk0nLF0x7L

Other things: Oli and Jack came to Maidstone for a couple of days. On tuesday night I got more drunk that I've ever been in the Loft, and made mischief, involving following some boy who had snuck in and chanting 'SUUUUUUSPECT' at him over and over again. We went out on Thursday as well, and got more drunk. Wicked bad times, yo.

Also, me and Oli have started a progressive, experimental electro-ambience project. Click here.

Two more things: the new Arctic Monkeys stuff is wicked, and if you disagree, then go listen to some other shit band that's still doing the kitchen-sink colloquialism thing. Secondly, there's nothing worse than going to sit on the loo and forgetting to put the seat down so you sit on bare ceramic. Euuuuuuuuugggghhhthbfv.

But all I could say was 'hey'

2009-08-15T11:56:00.003+01:00

I have a confession to make.

I really like the new Bloc Party song. Is this bad? I have a feeling this is bad. I know they were good at Melt! Festival, Silent Alarm is one of the best albums made in the 2000s - FACT, and Intimacy made up for the embarrassment of Kele's lyric writing on A Weekend In the City, but still - they seem to make people feel as if they shouldn't like them. Does anyone feel this too? Never mind. I am fucking into the new song, although they're somewhat jumping on a pre-bandwagon what with the bringing back of mid-90s chart dance music. We all know it's happening, but fair play to Bloc Party for getting it in their indie music first.

Last night I went to What's My Age Again, the monthly (or is that bi-monthly?) night at the Old Blue Last that plays all the pop-punk/emo from our youthful teenage days. I went to the first one months ago, and I never ever been in a pub so hot, and last night was even worse, it being August an' all. Downstairs was hot enough, but upstairs, it felt like the middle of a moshpit in a Less Than Jake/Blink-182/FFAF/etc gig. Basically it smelt like Brixton Academy used to smell in the standing bit downstairs when the gig was three-quarters through and no-one gave a fuck. Siiiiiiiiiiiiick.

The best songs played all night were Fall Out Boy, Panic! At the Disco, Funeral for a Friend, and The Used. There was quite a few people that I know out and about, which just added to the house party atmosphere. I got drunk, and I danced. There's not much more to say.

At the end of the evening, Claire and Tendayi wanted to go back to these guys' house, and, had I felt not so hungover from drinking far too much expensive wine at a meal with my family the night before, I probably would have gone with them. However, I felt tired and sick. You know the feeling where you've been hungover for about a week, or a series of days, without really washing, or sleeping, or just recovering? Yeah, it's not nice. So I sent them on their way (no need to stop their evening), and left to get the first of two buses home.

On the N35 to Elephant and Castle, a woman was sick. What the fuck is it with me getting night buses on my own and girls throwing up? It is a correlation I do not wish to consider.

And oh, the new football season starts today. Fuck YEAH.

'The Dude abides, man...'

2009-08-12T20:43:00.004+01:00

Last Saturday was Holly's party. The theme was 'Hippies and Hillbillys' and after spending two days procrastinating over the subject of a costume, Saturday afternoon rolled around and I realised I had nothing to wear. And then it hit me: who's the best hippie of all time? The motherfucking Dude, man:

Anyway, after some pre-drinking at Toby's (who hadn't really planned any costume whatsoever) with Parkes, Timbo, and Swain (who all had excellent costumes), we walked through the middle of town, on a Saturday night, to Holly's. Both me and Toby were wearing pyjama bottoms. Parkes looked like the biggest pikey mechanic I'd ever encountered as well, and apparently when driving was nodded at by pikeys in white vans driving in the opposite direction. Actually, before reaching town, we had to walk through Mote Park, and in the middle of this fucking pitch black park, Parkes decides to tell us a 'true horror story' one of his best friend's friend had gone through (not a direct quote):

'This girl was babysitting for two friends of her parents, right? And for some reason, the baby would not stop crying all night. This girl was trying everything to stop it from crying, but a couple of hours had to just give it a rest - she'd been up and downstairs all night, everyime she got it to bed, it just started crying. So she's in the baby's room, and rings the parents, and is like 'look I'm really sorry, I've tried everything, but it will just not stop crying. I think it's got something to do with this clown statue in it's room, do you mind if I move it out of the room?' To this, the parents are nonplussed - they don't have a statue, never mind a clown one. With that, the clown statue moves and sprints out of the room - turns out it was a paedophile.'

At the time he told us this, we shat ourselves. Later turns out this story is false. Also in Mote Park shit loads of fireworks suddenly go off next to us. Needless to say, I felt traumatised by the time we left the other side of the park.

The party was good. My main three memories from the entire night involve me looking around and promptly shitting myself as I thought a massive pikey had gatecrashed - it was just Parkes, playing 9 to 5 promptly followed by My Girls, and discussing salvia experiences with Pascoe. All in all, a sick night!

Egotisticalism

2009-08-11T13:53:00.003+01:00

I have come to a startling conclusion. Quite frankly, it was staring me in the face for a long time. I am surrounded by worthy, well-written blogs. Poetry, drama, music recommendations, film critique, graphic design, and photography stare at me in the face. And here I am, rambling on about how drunk I got last Tuesday or whatever, or what godawful B-movie I last had the (mis)fortune to watch, in a haze of smoke.

I feel I've lost my niche in regards to this blog, creatively and anecdotally. So here is my new resolution: I am going to get more drunk and more out of my mind in order to have something more exciting to say instead of 'I got really drunk in my house last week and passed out listening to Frank Turner'. I shall start this with the long-overdue Melt! Festival post, coming soon, whenever two of my good friends can get off their arses to develop the pictures. Secondly, I'm going to actually go through with at least half the ideas I have creatively, instead of getting too blazed, thinking of ideas, and then going to bed listening to the Spirited Away soundtrack and forgetting them in the morning. I think I might be doing photography for Smiths magazine next year, so watch this space.

Speaking of photos, two things coming: I'm just off to get some photos developed myself, from last term. Expect a nostaliga-ridden photopost very soon. Also, I'm working on making a new blog, on the subject of strangely attractive chavs and whatnot. I don't want to go solo on this one, so if you're a boy that shares my odd attraction, get in touch - I need some help. Equally, if you're a girl and fancy the Adidas pants off fake-tanned chav boys (or some variant), I'd like to hear from you, and see if you want to contribute.

8 Musgrove Road

2009-08-09T21:47:00.003+01:00

So last Friday, me and Oliver took command of the Victorian six-bedroom, three storey house that we somehow found before the end of last term.

It is...ramshackle, to say the least. Some of the windows don't have locks (our new landlord is fixing them, though), half the lights have gone and need new bulbs, the decor is both exceptional yet far too colourful in places, the kitchen is tiny, and half the decorating itself has been done so badly it's humourous, but I could not be happier with it. Additionally, the fact that it's ramshackle and has bits and bobs of furniture everywhere means that we have quite a lot of freedom when it comes to the house - we can do whatever we want with it (even graffiti-ing it if we desired) with the rule that it has to look acceptable and presentable in two years' time, when we move out.

My new room has a HUGE closet, that has two doors. From the outside it looks like two separate closets, but open them up, and wow! A huge, almost walk-in domain. My walls are bright yellow and the carpet is a worn-out red. What colour should I paint my room? I was thinking light blue. Would this be good?

Anyway. Oli had to leave on Friday afternoon for his dad's, so I had the house to myself. Mitchell was in central so we hatched a plan to do something, and subsequently and unsurprisingly bought an abundance of alcohol. India and Spires, also in New Cross, were invited/summoned, and we broke in my new house with paper plate illustrations, pizza, meeting the new neighbours, and generally getting raucously drunk. I have already split quite a bit of beer on the carpet, but due to the ramshackle appearance of the house, it doesn't really matter.

If I know you and I'm generally friends with you, then expect a big-ballin', mad bitchin' party at the end of September. That's is all x

Tigerlilly

2009-08-06T16:52:00.004+01:00

I don't care if you think she's rough, I still think she's cute.

Anyway. I was flicking through the current issue of iD magazine (strike me down now, anti-trendy trendy types) and guess what I saw: bowl cuts. Fucking everywhere! Maybe I shouldn't have gone back to swoops.

Today I paid £852 to my new landlord, and tomorrow I get the keys to 8 Musgrove Road. I'm going out on Friday night, and will stay there until Saturday. Super excited.

My holiday with my family was as standard as ever - but also fun. I read We, and I heavily recommend it to all of you. It's better than 1984, and far less clichéd. I mainly listened to early Of Montreal, loads of Jens Lekman, and got really into A Sunny Day In Glasgow. I took some pictures too, I'll get them developed soon.

I also got my hands on, for free, an old Philips tape deck/radio boombox. Fuck YEAH. It's awesome. I couldn't get any pictures, but I'll upload some soon so you can be envious of my sweet black plastic retro goodness.

I did some bad drawings whilst on holiday, too. Enjoy (or, rather, endure):

Adwipe (with apologies to Brooker)

2009-08-05T21:32:00.002+01:00

I have previously posted on adverts. After holidaying in France for two weeks (more on that later), I haven't seen any, but I saw a couple today and some ones on my extended family's illegal Sky box that they have in their house in France, which I was at for a couple of days.

First up is an advert for Strongbow.

I am not sure if this advert is ironically overtly-nationalistic or not. Because I really, really hope that it is, and is not genuinely that right-wing. When I first saw it, I was angry. And I think you all know why. However, when you consider Strongbow's history of not-too-serious adverts, it makes me think it's a knowing ironic joke. However, thinking about it, I can remember loads of old adverts for the drink that are just centrered around 'cheeky chappy' lad culture, so maybe not. Decide for yourself.

Next; Orange:

Orange have a history of good adverts. Both of these highlight this, I think. Some good animation in both cases, but both different. Avoiding the overly pretentious angle that most adverts fall foul of. Bravo!

Finally, a look back at old adverts. On this occasion, I want to show some old Sony Bravia adverts. Constant theme, exexuted in a different way every time. Just beautiful to look at!

There's way more on YouTube if you search for them, including an epic one involving the great pyramids of Egypt...

Surprise Ice

2009-07-25T14:58:00.001+01:00

I'm sitting in a deep forest right in the corner of NW France as I write this. French keyboards are extremely frustrating, I would explain why but it means more typing.

I promise a Melt! post as soon as I get back. In the meantime I'm redesigning the flags for most Western countries; I'll show you later. Au revoir

Update

2009-07-22T11:52:00.002+01:00

Greetings from Paris. I'm sitting in an internet cafe just off from Notre-Dame, and then I'm catching a TGV to Morlaix to holiday with my family until the 5th August.

Just time for a few updates: Melt! was sick sick sick, I met the best group of people, smashed Germany until it surrendered (default war joke, eh), and saw excellent bands. I'll do a proper post when I have the time and more pictures with which to bore you. I'll leave you with the above picture, which was taken by an MTV photographer. See you in two weeks.

'I feel like a fifteen-year-old socialist'

2009-07-15T21:09:00.005+01:00

Last night I went, instead of the usual Source, to Loft - most of you by now know that Source was shut down, possibly permanently, last tuesday, after a massive drugs raid.

I really really enjoyed myself. My main issue with Source (there seems to be a different one for me every week) is that there are just too many...average people there, y'know what I mean? I think you do. But safe to say, last night, they stayed away. For the most part it was a crowd that I actually wanted to be a part of. Except I didn't like how drum and bass was given an hour and a half at the end. At least at Source it's left somewhere else so you can escape to another room. Ah well, minor flaw. I got hugely drunk. I remember a conversation with Swainey in which I went on a Brooker-esque rant about the news and big business. I felt like a stereotypical, zealous, fifteen-year-old socialist, and vocally told him that. I then spilt my drink I was gesticulating so much.

Tomorrow morning, at 3am, I leave for the wonders of Berlin and Melt! Festival. Those of you who know me quite well will know my child-like wonderment that emerges every time I see a plane (want to know why? Have a smoke with me), so god knows what my mood will be to actually fly on one. At Melt! I want to see about five bands completely, but will see about 20-25 that I like overall. Top five to see: Digitalism, Erol Alkan vs Boys Noize joint set, The Dodos, Animal Collective.

The trip has been very unorganised. I don't have my European Health Insurance Card, but discovered a loophole in medical policy which will allow me to still get treatment if I need to. Take THAT, federal European administrative schmucks! Oliver has actually LOST his ticket, so that could be dodgy if they refuse to issue him a replacement at the box office. But fuck it - to Berlin!

PS. Today in Maidstone I saw about fifteen people all in skater gear from the Nineties. Town was full of them! What's next - tracksuit bottoms, lunchboxes? I should totally write for Platform about it.

See you in three weeks suckers

2009-07-13T12:09:00.001+01:00

Going away on Thursday. Hope I don't get a cold/flu/sick/swine flu by then
I know it doesn't kill, but hell damn I don't want to miss my holiday

Strange times

2009-07-08T12:26:00.004+01:00

Absurdity seems to be tracking my movements recently. By this, I seem to be living my life as per usual in the summer (ie: being stuck at home with nothing to do and every so often going out) but regular nights are turning into odd ones.

Starting three weeks ago, I went to Source as per usual. Will, who lives in Headcorn, and drives, asks if he can crash at mine as he had been drinking. I, of course, agree.
Skip to quarter-to-four in the morning, and a regular Source night of seeing people I haven't seen in a year, dancing to either obvious indie or some good electro/dub later on, and making awkward conversation with a variety of girls, and I am walking with Will to Sainsbury's, where he is parked. His logic is that he has left it so long since a drink that he can drive, but he agrees to give me a lift back home out of goodwill. However, when we get to the car, and are about to get in, he stops, and looks at me over the roof of the car.

"Do you want to go to the beach?"
"......what?"
"I'm game if you are?"

If you know me, you'll know that if anyone EVER says that to me, I instantly come around to doing it. So we get in the car, and drive, at four in the morning, to Camber Sands. And fuck me, it was worth it - good chats with one of my best, best friends, and watching the sunrise. And then paddling in the sea, but our feet were so numb that the water felt warm.

Driving back at 6am, with a heavy hangover kicking in, I realised that I was definitely drunk when we were driving - I couldn't possibly comment on whether Will was.

Late last week I went up to see the Mansion boys (including Sam and Ruth, who are staying there). It was hella good to get out of Kent for a bit, as lovely as it is in the summer, and back to New Cross, where, let's face it, I belong.

I was mainly up to see my dad on Friday, but I came up on Thursday with Parkes, so I could see him and the others do Clinic Presents. It was a good night, a big but friendly crowd. Last on stage was Naseby Fox, who sings about being a sailor and being drunk, and has a song about hating his wife. He isn't married. During his set, bathed in red light, and singing these excellent but insanely odd songs, I suddenly see Parkes spin towards Tim, Ian and my direction, with a look of pure horror on his face. I crane my neck over the people in front to see what resulted in a look of pure, unadulterated fear. Naseby Fox had suddenly started belting out lines, which was absurd enough, but then nothing could have led to me guessing what had Parkes scared. I crane my neck, and there on stage, bathed in red light, standing proud on four legs, not moving at all, is a dog. A motherfucking dog. Parkes has a fear of dogs.

Parkes spins and storms for the other room for some respite - fair enough. I keep watching. People are starting to twig that there's a dog on stage. Not only this, but holding the dog's lead, just off stage, is a huge black guy, complete with dreadlocks, grinning from ear to ear. Considering that this was a night complemented by semi-pretentous kids from South-East London, this is surreal in itself. Naseby Fox is also becoming aware of the dog.

Over the course of the set, everytime the lines are sung very loudly, or people applaud, the dogs barks as well. People are a little unsure how to act, but most people, myself included, are laughing. Naseby Fox works the dog into his set, barking himself, and when the set ends, the dog drinks a pint of Guinness. You heard me. Guinness.

So that's two nights on the 'Normal nights gone weird' tally for this summer. Then last night, I went out in Source again. I got in, put all my money except a couple of quid on my Double Your Money card, and then got a couple of drinks. I went to the downstairs bar and there was no-one there except a bored-looking Matt on bar duties. I was chatting to him, and no-one was there because they didn't have a card reader for the money cards. Then a woman brought one over, so I got another drink as there was no queue. Then literally a minute later, as I'm getting my drink, I see three policemen. Nothing out of the ordinary, I suppose - police do the rounds on all the club, it's good to see them out and about, makes me feel pretty secure. Then all hell breaks loose. Another fifteen enter the downstairs area, and then all split off in two's and spint to every corner of the club, chasing one guy and generally making a commotion. The music in the main room stops. Then the music in the outside area stops. Then the woman comes over to Matt and tells him to close the bar. Then the manager comes over to the police. Rumours are by then flying all over the place, some people thought maybe a knife, but then more people reckon it's a drugs raid. Turns out they're right. I got to the front smoking area, and I am greeted by the most policemen I've seen in one go. About thirty of them. At this point it's pretty obvious they've been tipped off. They hand out leafets that state a warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act. A lovely copper tells me that they'll probably close the club - can't blame him. Everyone goes to Muggs, then everyone breaks off into different clubs - Loft re-opened (which is where I went), Liquid, River Bar, and R-Bar. In Loft I was poor as all my money was on my card and they didn't have the damn machines. But I bought one black absinth. I don't know how ANYONE drinks it. It is literally like drinking death, and sits in your stomach uncomfortably. Matt kindly bought me a drink as well, so I was pleasantly drunk.

Saying that, what the hell was going on? Apparently it was fifty-six policemen in total. Why? Source is not a massive drugs club. What are people going to have? A line of coke or ket? An eighth of MD? A tenner's worth of weed? Seriously, guys. There's not a backpack of coke stashed under the decks or hidden in empty blacked-out bottles of Jagermeister. Although, that's a pretty good idea (and I have also heard that Source at the weekend is quuuuuuuite drug-filled, eh?). Still. Jokes evening. And I have LOADS of money for next Tuesday as I'll have more money, plus the money I didn't spend yesterday. Waheeeey!

Three absurd nights. Seems like Maidstone is getting good?

PS. I am hating more and more on the Public Service adverts on Spotify. No, if I don't use a condom I am NOT sleeping with all their old partners - making that sort of tenuous connection is like saying that I'm an anti-Semite by proxy if I knew Hitler's grandchildren (not that he's got any?). People can not use a condom and have perfectly safe sex. Stop being such fearmongers. Equally, I DO 'Know My Limits' - that's why I break them. To get drunk and fall over on the dancefloor, and go home with someone I don't know. Obviously. You're just giving people ideas!

2009-07-06T19:54:00.007+01:00

I enjoy nothing more than an excellently made advert.
Check out 0:30 in particular, that shot is fucking ace!

I'm going to post more, I just had that really annoying experience when you know you want to post something, but can't remember what it is. Pfft.
PS - If like me you like the song, it's Into Dust by Mazzy Star. The album, So Tonight That I Might See, is brilliant 90's alt-rock.

2009-07-06T13:21:00.001+01:00

I have taken to playing Texas Hold'em Poker on Facebook whilst listening to the Ocean's Eleven soundtrack on Spotify at the same time.

Living the cliché

2009-07-04T22:40:00.002+01:00

Fuck you and your mundane conversation. Fuck your over-romanticised approach to relationships. Fuck you and your friends. Fuck your in-jokes. Fuck you and your scheming ways. Fuck your club night, and fuck you and your endless fucking promotion of your fucking shit club somewhere in Soho that I don't want to visit. Fuck your creativity. Fuck you and your mindless drinking culture. Fuck you and your drug culture. Fuck you and any scene you're part of. Fuck you and your Facebook quizzes, and fuck you and your top five films, bands, songs, and books. Fuck you and your mates, and fuck you and your lads on tour. And fuck your group t-shirts with your fucking nicknames printed on them, and fuck your shit British version of a fucking fraternity. Fuck anywhere north of the Watford Gap. Fuck anywhere south of the Watford Gap. Fuck you and your 'crazy first year' at university. Fuck your drunken profile picture. Fuck your blog, your zine, your flickr, your writing, your art, fuck that. Fuck you.

I am in a foul, foul mood.
I think I'm overtired. Normal service will resume tomorrow

Exhibit

2009-07-01T17:57:00.002+01:00

Today, for the first time ever, I helped in setting up a gallery space/exhibition. It wasn't how I imagined - I had a vision of me and some friends in New Cross/Shoreditch (delete as appropriate) setting up some trendily dingy box room with some badly drawn illustrations.

No, today I set up a space for Year 11/12 art students from the Thomas Aveling school (where my mum teaches) to exhibit their work for moderation. In Chatham. Just off Chatham High Street. Not the dirtily glamourous work I imagined it would be, in all honesty.

I basically just cropped, glued, and mounted work for a moderator to come in and judge on Friday. And, I really fucking enjoyed it! The weather was awesome and the mood was really relaxed (most of the teachers there I know personally through working with my mum, who stayed at school). Definitely would and hopefully will do it again.

Lesley Gore on the T.A.M.I. Show

2009-06-30T18:17:00.001+01:00

I've been watching out of the windows of the bus
Everytime it passes by
Just to see if you'd be outside
Smoking cigarettes and passing the time.

(L)(L)(L)(L)(L)

Currently

2009-06-29T19:51:00.009+01:00

It is so hot outside that I have taken to walking around without a top on. Considering that I am neither scrawny enough to be trendy or toned enough to be hot (I am a weird unnappatising mix between the two) this is quite a statement by me. All I do at the moment is get excited about something, get really up for the idea, then give up within minutes. This includes but is not limited to:

Cooking
Illustrating
Reading
Tidying
Watching Wimbledon

Other than this, I have played more with my Yamaha, and I'm actually getting into it. I need a girl that is both sexy and geeky with an angelic voice to complete my dream of lo-fi, bi-gender, electro-indie. I may or may not name every song after lines from Wes Anderson films. Hurrr.

On the subject of Anderson (and particularly his soundtracks), I have been going through a phase of really getting back into his films. Don't hate me, but I only just saw Rushmore for the first time the other day, and it triggered one of those 'I forgot how much I liked that director' feelings in me, you know the one. Thus I re-watched The Royal Tenebaums and compeltely realised how good the soundtrack is. In the last two days all I have listened to is the thwack of a tennis ball being hit (before I get bored of it), Kings of Convenience, Casiotone for the Painfully Alone, Nico's Chelsea Girl, and Paul Simon's Negotiations and Love Songs. I feel as if (first thing excluded) these shall be the only four things I listen to this summer. I hope so, anyway. I have a horrible feeling I'll just resort to listening to Death Cab as per usual. And as fun as that is, I have rather over-listened to them in recent summers, and we all know that Narrow Stairs is underwhelming and not nearly half as good as it could've, nay, should have been.

2009-06-28T22:24:00.000+01:00

From now I think I might stop talking and let videos from YouTube convey my thoughts and emotions.

2009-06-28T14:16:00.000+01:00

I have Platform to thank for this gold. So, so, so good.

Also

2009-06-25T21:42:00.000+01:00

Apparently the girl from the Harry Potter movies was at the Blur gig at GSU.

The one night I'm not there. FFS.

Top 10

2009-06-25T20:45:00.004+01:00

Ever since Spotify replaced Last.fm, my listening habits have gone from sufficiently knowing all the way to embarrassingly obvious. Saying this, I found that you can see your top 10 tracks, artists, or albums by going to 'Top Lists' and changing it from 'Everywhere' or 'United Kingdom' to 'Me'. Don't lie, I can see you doing it right now...

Artists:
1) Fall Out Boy - standard
2) Los Campesinos! - should be like #7
3) Digitalism - should be #2
4) 50 Cent - I do NOT understand this
5) The Unicorns - yeah
6) LA Roux - she has like two tracks. Uhh, shit, I just realised I'm listening to her RIGHT NOW
7) Animal Collective - yeah
8) Stevie Wonder - what
9) Will Smith - what, but I'm still pleased
10) Shinichi Osawa - what

4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 shouldn't be in there - I've listened to them like once.

In Defence of 'Star Trek: Nemesis'

2009-06-25T15:53:00.003+01:00

Disclaimer: If you don't like Star Trek, don't read this. I'm going in deep.

Matthew De Abaitua claimed that with Nemesis, 'the geek exodus from Star Trek will continue with this middling movie, a cheapo space battle that has all the cool allure of a disco-dancing dad', and whilst it's true that the film unfortunatley oversaw the 'end' of the franchise way back before J.J. got his grubby geek-chic cool hands over it and re-instigtated it (I still haven't seen the new one, bear with me), I think he's somewhat missed the entire point: Star Trek is, and never really has been, 'cool' in the obvious sense of the word. Don't get me wrong, there are some Transformers-esque 'cool' elements (more on that later), but I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of Nemesis not getting the respect it deserves within previous canon of the series.

For starters, it is a modern Star Trek film that is not entirely based on a premise of war, or the destruction of the Enterprise, or of Earth, although all three of these come into play near the end of the film - this is Trek, after all. No, the film is based (and this is a modern film, remember) on a bout of the antagonist's existential angst. Brilliant! His anger at being the 'echo' of Picard leads him on a calculated, chess-like gameplan of removing the original Picard's universe.

The film expands on its theme of individuality with the contrast created through Data's finding of a 'brother'. His relationship with the new-found android runs in a similar but converse manner throughout the film, resulting near the end with a realisation both for all involved, although it is a little obvious.

The film also contains the neccessary back-catalogue references that come with any addition to the series. There are references to Data's creator, the Borg, Star Trek: Voyager, and even, hold your breath, the war with the Dominion (yes, Deep Space Nine has actually been referenced).

Enough about existential debate of self-referencing screenwriters, though. My main love for Nemesis stems from the main battle scene. When faced with an impossible well-armed apponent (which also gives itself a nice sub-context on the morals of apocalyptic weaponry), and his ship left with nothing but impulse, Picard comes to the fore. His space age weapons are useless, having been out-advanced, his shields are down, and he can't run. So what does he do? He rams the other ship. The pure simplicity and wonder of his move, when examined in comparison to the advanced technological environment in which it is executed, is genius. I consider it, hands down, the single best battle move ever seen in all of Star Trek's history. And it is this, as well as the political, philosophical tone that comes with the film, which results in me asking you, if you have seen it, to re-consider it. I haven't yet seen the new one, but I feel that a defence of Nemesis is neccessary in this light. Just watch it again - trust me.

2009-06-22T22:29:00.000+01:00

i am going to get fucking drunk tomorrow

i'm also going to test myself, and see where i stand.
ain't telling what the test is or what i'm testing, unlucks

F-40 (cont.)

2009-06-22T11:52:00.002+01:00

Found these at the back of one of my drawers. I think they were the last shots I took on the F40, in the hope that the shutter breaking was temporary. These confirmed my fears, but I like them.

F-40

2009-06-21T17:18:00.001+01:00

Back when I was sixteen, my granddad gave me his old SLR camera, a fully functional Nikon F-40, complete with 35-70mm lens. Looking through some of my old stuff from before I moved to university, I stumbled across some old photos that I had taken with it, that I had actually bothered to develop. Most of them are nostalgic, and I would almost go as far to say that they're very personal to me when it comes to that period of my life. Most of them were just point-and-shoot shots, which I think adds to how personal they are to me - unlike studio photography/outside photoshoots, they were taken completely in the moment, and these moments were pretty intense.

I used the camera up until I was eighteen. I stopped using around March 2008. The reason for this is that I went to Paris with MGS in February 2008. The trip was alot of fun; the standard school trip of a foreign city, alcohol, another school in which the opposite gender was involved, and that 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' mentality (this mentality is flawed on school trips: a) we're not in Vegas, and b) everything that happens in the trip will be told to all school peers the moment you return home. Still, people act like it anyway, me involved). I took my F-40 with me, and was hopeful when I returned of some excellent shots. However, after getting three of the six rolls of film I used developed, I realised a massive problem - the shutter was broken. After speaking to my aunt, who's a professional photographer, I think the problem is that half the shutter does not open and close, resulting in half the images coming out pitch black as that half of the shutter is in the way. Here are some images I took that memorable weekend that look like they would be good images, but half been ruined.

I never got the camera repaired because I never really had enough money. However, after looking through these old shots, which remind me of my life when I was sixteen-eighteen, I think I may take the broken body up to London when I return there, to take it to a proper photography shop with the aim of getting it repaired - it's too good a piece of kit to just abandon. Additionally, my output with this camera was huge for me at that time - in a year and half of using it, I took twenty-to-twenty-five rolls of film, and only ever got five developed, so I'll be taking them with me, and will get them developed.

Faces

2009-06-21T17:17:00.003+01:00

Top: One of my first illustrations, from the start of the year (NB: I've never done GCSE/ALevel art, so that's why it's my 'first')
Bottom: One of my more recent drawings.

Looks like I haven't really learnt anything.

Eiffel Tower

2009-06-21T17:17:00.001+01:00

Ink drawing of the Eiffel Tower. I drew it as part of my illustration course last winter. I'll upload the final products when I get them back from the markers.

3D Glasses

2009-06-21T17:16:00.000+01:00

2009-06-19T16:55:00.001+01:00

i am so fucking bored. i am slowly but surely eating everything in the house, not because i am particularly hungry, but because i am so bored, that it seems to pass the time. this is not good.

today i sold three old xbox games i never play anymore for £10. if i can get some money for PS2 ones i'll be the fucking dollar, i tell you that. big whoop

on self

2009-06-18T20:40:00.005+01:00

"i'm sitting there in the emcompassing warmth when i realise it. it wasn't a hugely demanding realisation, just this odd combination of warm eurphoria and dulling reality.

i concern myself completely. and i freely admit that. i am completely self-concerned. but that is not my realisation. no, my realisation is that i concern myself completely, and everyone concerns themselves wholly. i just think i'm one of the few to realise it. no, i concern myself completely to you, like you would a message or demanding an action.

i think you'll be okay with it when you come to my conclusion. the beauty of it is that not only do i think you'll be okay, i know it. i know it. because i am too."

2009-06-18T13:04:00.003+01:00

i have only been back in maidstone for less than a week and already i am excruciatingly bored. there's simply nothing to do, and if there was anything to do anyway, i don't have any money to do it with. however, i have been out once since returning home, on tuesday night, for a reminder of the old times. well, really, it wasn't like the old times, half the people there i had never seen before in my life, and the other half were people i still love, but didn't come out last year, and were people that i've met this year. there was still the old crowd though, partying away, whatever the crowd. which i enjoyed. i also got mindlessly drunk on about £16, which was an achievement in itself. i had an absolute riot of an evening.

what i don't like about source, though, is the fact that the club starts to empty at about half one/two-ish. regardless of the fact that for the last year i've only really entered clubs an hour before this, the good music in source only really starts at about this time - i don't enjoy the heavy drum 'n' bass outside which is playing all evening, and i get my awful/ironic/jokes (delete as appropriate) indie music from both club sandwich/candybox/the roxy/madame jojo's when i'm up in london during term time. no, at source, the good electro/dub starts at about half one, which is when people start leaving. i understand that it's an entirely different game here, people have work/school/university in the morning and living at home with your parents mean an earlier night for all involved, but come on. seriously guys.

anyway, i enjoyed the late morning music, even though there was basically no-one left that i knew by then, so i was left banging away, doing a less-intense version of parkes' wizardry dancing on my own right next to the decks. ho yeah!

the point of this post, though, is mainly boredom, but i have a track for you. now i'll freely admit that i don't know as much as other people when it comes to electro/dub/fidget/minimal. i fucking enjoy it, but because i don't have my own laptop/computer i've had to get my knowledge of this music from a variety of sources: my friends, but mainly listening out on club nights, particularly at chew the fat at the arches. if you know me well you'll know that i do sometime promotion for this monthly club night at london bridge (particularly because it gives me free entry for a night which has had the following names playing: rusko, caspa, herve, raffertie, A! bassline, jack beats, and their resident DJ, foamo). foamo has quickly become my favourite dj of the moment (although no-one shall ever surpass digitalism), due to the fact that he is, IMO at least, a big old mix of every strand of electro, dub, fidget, and a little tiny bit of minimal, which results in his sets usually being the most fun, best to dance to, and basically have a good damn time. i've listened to his chew the fat! mix on repeat recently, and there's one track that stands out for me in particular, even though i had no clue what it was...until now. i give you foamo's remix of cagedbaby's 'forced'. i know you guys in the know (and saying that i just notiched that dan has bigged this track up too), know this as a relatively old-ish track, but christ almighty do i like it. here it is for you people:

Cagedbaby - Forced (Foamo Remix)

PS. i'm not becoming a buzz blog. promise. how does the hype machine work again?

2009-06-17T23:05:00.001+01:00

i just decided that i don't like you and i find you condescendingly pretentious
you could mention a pot that's black but quite frankly you take the cake.

eeeurgh.

lo-fi-so-by

2009-06-16T13:35:00.002+01:00

today, in cleaning out my bedroom in maidstone, i found my yamaha portasound ps5-9. it's a kid's keyboard that i got when i was like eleven or something. i tried getting a picture for here but apparently it's so old it doesn't exist on the internet. i cabled it up to my old bass amp.

anyone wanna form a casiotone for the painfully alone band?

digital love

2009-06-13T22:23:00.003+01:00

holy. fucking. shit.

i just got ridiculously excited. today i moved out of raymont hall, and it was not good. yet when i left, no-one except jack and ollie were around, the kitchen looked, felt and smelt like a bomb of uncooked spaghetti and smoked cigarettes had been detonated and then left to fester for a week, and the two of them were about to cook a massive feast of old food they had stolen from the freezer, because they had realised that 'people put loads of food in there and then just forget about it...'. it was reassuring to know that even though i was sad to be leaving, things will always stay the same, and most likely will be exactly the same wherever we're living next year.

anyway, my excitement? oh yeah. well i came home to an environment of cleanliness, cereal, loadsa food, a bath, and a computer of my own (yes, my dear small group of readers, i don't own a laptop, yet i have incessantly blogged all fucking year. effort, no?). that's pretty sick. but that's not what i'm excited about.

no, what i'm excited about is the possibilities of this summer. not in your standardised 'omg i'm going to get so drunk and go to festivals and omg it's going to be awesome' type of way (although i am incredibly excited for melt! festival in july), but in the fact that i am going to approach this summer armed with the following:

a sense of reckless abandon
substance abuse
a vow to agree to nearly anything suggested to me
a sneaky, sneaky, dirty-as-fuck smirk
the biggest urge to creative mischief ALL THE FUCKING TIME

of all of these feelings, the last one is the most important. i just have the urge to misbehave and cause general pandemonium loads at the moment. yes, it does seem as if i've got my lust for life back. after a month or two of feeling pretty lonesome, acting monogamously, and generally being a fucking pussy, i've got myself back.

bring the noise!

epilogue

2009-06-12T16:02:00.002+01:00

so last night i had a dream in which i went to a bbq at night with most of my ex's.
shit was fucking weird

relocate

2009-06-10T17:14:00.003+01:00

i move out of 57-63 wickham road on saturday. i'm not too stoked about this, but i have run out of money/any way to live properly and i feel like home cooking and an overabundance of television. at the moment i'm packing up my winter clothes and most of my random stuff for my nan and grandad to come collect tomorrow, and then i leave properly on saturday.

it's been a pretty fucking sick year in all honesty. if i think back to the exact day when i moved up to london, i can remember everything: the weather, the temperature (it was sunny and very warm), and my nerves on the drive up to raymont hall. that same evening i went to the mansion and went out with some of my best best friends from maidstone. the best evening to start with.

RIP kitchen E20, 57-63 Wickham Road, Brockley

Long Live Musgrove Road, New Cross:

yeah buddy.

let's get dressed up

2009-06-06T15:05:00.001+01:00

fuck YEAH summer ball
fuck YEAH herve
fuck YEAH tuxedo

that hold music

2009-06-05T17:16:00.002+01:00

thoughts in kitchen E20 (you may us colloquially as 'the ranch') have been somewhat subdued recently. this is understandable, considering the recent passing of one david carradine. we here in E20 (and more specifically me, jack, oliver and mitchell) have religiously watched kung fu over the course of the year, and when the news broke yesterday afternoon that carradine had been found hanging in a wardrobe in a bangkok hotel, it was heartbreaking. caine from kung fu isn't allowed to committ suicide! however, if you've clicked on the story above or are aware of the details, today the plot has thickened substantially - specifically, there was apparently a cord around his neck as well as his penis...auto-erotic asphixiation anyone? all i'll say is, i'm not happy he's dead at all, but i think i'd prefer him to die doing something he (i assume) he enjoyed. i think. anyway, regardless of the circumstances of his death, i think this clip does the story justice. david carradine rip:

in dreams i dance with you

2009-06-04T12:56:00.003+01:00

lately i have been listening to a hella lot of pop-punk, especially dookie and enema of the state. i don't know, lyrics about just being bored most of the time/getting your rocks off/being annoyed at the opposite gender/partying seem to be my bag at the moment. additonally i seem to be developing a taste for bands' debut albums and early work - think arcade fire, and also of montreal.

last night i had a dream in which i won £10 million in some surreal gameshow-esque bastardisation of blackjack. well, more specifically, i think it was about £9,838,000. i seem to remember that everytime i won a round of blackjack, my winnings doubled. that may explain the specific amount that i won. the dream was very realistic. in it i did the following: hired an investment banker to invest a million in order to make more money, and i hired him on a commission basis so he wouldn't rip me off, talked to my mum about buying a house, almost changed my facebook status to 'Joshua Kirk has won £10 milllion' then decided against it because i didn't like the idea of everyone knowing i was rich, and various other weirdly specific moments. i then woke up and got depressed that i wasn't a millionaire.

it made me realise, however, how much of my time i waste by dreaming about what i would do if i was a multi-millionaire. i want to be rich.