Pro-lifer?

Also in The Sunday Times was this story about Avril Lavigne allegedly being a pro-lifer:

Amnesty International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star backers in the row over its decision to support women’s access to abortion.

The group has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

And I was going to write something about it but then, having googled it, I came across this post on The Guardian site which pretty much dealt with the complete stupidity of the article meaning there was little point in continuing.

My googling did throw up a couple of things though. Firstly there's the change from "both made statements against abortion" in The Sunday Times article to "both of whom have made emphatic statements against abortion" in this story (need to scroll down a bit). The only citation in The Sunday Times article was of an Avril Lavigne song being used on a pro-life Youtube video, how this constitutes a statement, nevermind an emphatic one by Avril Lavigne is pretty much beyond me. I went through pages of google results looking for these statements and came across absolutely nothing.

(I'll take time out to say that I don't buy The Sunday Times. I go round my parents' house for Sunday dinner, I need a decent meal at least once a week, and read it there, along with the Mail on Sunday...)

The other thing was this site, a site for Catholic teenagers which had a helpful review of The Best Damn Thing:

Like me, you may find yourself listening to this album with a skeptical ear. And you, like me, may find yourself liking The Best Damn Thing. There may be some sketchy content, but it’s undeniable that Avril Lavigne has an energy in her music that not many artists can match. Listen to the edited, RCA version, while keeping in mind that some of Lavigne’s ideas about relationship aren’t necessarily Catholic ideas about relationships

The strangest thing being that under "objectionable content" there is this sentence "And in “I Don’t Have to Try,” you’ll hear a song about a taking full control of a relationship." It's a sin to take full control of a relationship? And on reflection the sentence is badly written as well. Now that's a sin.

Old People Are Like So Cool

This story I'm a bit late on, but still, been busy etc., worth posting on anyway I think. Thurston Moore has been slagging off Avril Lavigne:

"I am playing with Yoko Ono, and she's well past 70 and she rocks. Neil Young rocks. It's certainly not John Mayer or Avril Lavigne. Those people don't rock. If that's the young generation in the culture, then (forget) it. In the underground, the old guys are cool. I like the fact that the older we get the more we can rock."

I know next to nothing about the music of John Mayer so I'm saying nothing about that but on the Avril Lavigne thing I just want to say - Is he insane?! Of course Thurston's cool. Love Sonic Youth. Got his new solo album and it's OK, though it hardly RAWKS, and it's hardly some sort of edgy avant garde thang, but it's pleasant enough (and I'm not doing some sort of ironic damning with faint praise thing: i do like the album). It's just that the comment sounds utterly bizarre. For one thing isn't what Avril Lavigne doing completely different to what Yoko Ono is doing? Why compare? Why make a comment about old people in "the underground" and compare them to Avril Lavigne, corporate rock chick? It seems ill-fitting.

The other interesting thing is that he doesn't seem to include himself in the category of old people. He splits it into two, the "old guys" and the "young generation". Where does he include himself?

Pink Rocks

(You wait days for one post then two come ...)

Saw this and thought it suitable to post, given that the Twins are so going to win Big Brother this week.

Particularly like the bit about how the linking of Pink with girls is a modern thing:

Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies Home Journal wrote: “There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”

The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: “If you like the color note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” Some sources suggest it wasn’t until the 1940s that the modern gender associations of girly pink became universally accepted. Pink is, therefore, perhaps not biologically girly. Boys who were raised in pink frilly dresses went down mines and fought in World War 2. Clothing conventions do change over time.

Idiocy Part 2: Or The Why Lewis Hamilton Wants To Leave The Country Quiz

From The Sunday Times (and yes I know I'm a bit late, and yes I know I post very little lately, but there seems so little time in a day...) Lewis Hamilton tells us why he wishes to leave the country:

“I’m definitely contemplating living outside the UK,” he said after qualifying on the front row for today’s race. “I’ve always dreamed of living in London; I’d still do anything to own my own apartment. I’ve always wanted to do it, but it’s becoming more and more difficult. Every time I go to London, cameras appear from God knows where.

And yet, if you remember, I posted on this at the time, he also had a little problem with tax:

Already he admits that he will have to consider whether a move abroad might be necessary to preserve his sanity and finances. “At the moment I like living in the UK as I’m close to my family and friends, and I’m young, so London is the best place to be,” he said. “But I have no idea what it’s going to be like over the next two years. If there is an escalation of interest I would have to reconsider – and also of course the tax situation can be a problem, not now but in the future.”

So which is it?

a) to avoid cameras?

b) to avoid tax?

I wonder...

Proud to Be British

What a country...

A Palestinian football team has been banned from playing in Britain, because officials apparently believe they will not return to Gaza.

The Gaza under-19s team had been invited to play British football clubs Chester City and Blackburn Rovers.

The team's visa applications were rejected after every member failed to meet entry criteria, said a spokesman for the British consulate in Jerusalem.

The consulate said it regretted being unable to support a worthy cause.

'Players depressed'

The players were told the visas were blocked because of the risk they would not return home to Gaza, says the BBC's Mike Sergeant in Jerusalem.

The team's manager told BBC News the players had expected to be welcomed in Britain, and were depressed about the decision.

Arranging football matches in Gaza is hard enough, says our correspondent.

There are few proper football pitches and Israeli forces bombed Gaza's main stadium last year.

Tour organiser Rod Cox, from Chester, said the ruling was unfair, as the players had overcome difficult circumstances to qualify for their national team.

"Here's a bunch of kids who've worked their entire life to be selected to be the 22 best players and to play for their national team," he said.

"What's the point of all that work if you're told: 'Yes, everybody else can go and compete in England but you can't.'"

Twinned With Paris

In last night's Big Brother the Twins used Paris Hilton as one of their words similar in meaning to beautiful!

Love It!

Hawking Up The Past

(So. I just saw two adverts in a row which started with the word "So" and I was right in the middle of a tirade (one of the adverts featured Jamie Oliver) against this trend in starting sentences with unnecessary words when I had to stop dead - wasn't I guilty of this myself? Yes. I vowed to stop. Never again will I start a post with some word just there to ... to what exactly? Exactly. Unnecessary words.) I watched the Hawkwind documentary on Saturday night. Pretty good, cool sounds - been listening to Space Ritual all the rest of the weekend and it's brilliant - some interesting interviews - not really knowing anything about them beforehand, I got into them when a friend gave me an unwanted Best Of and I thought it had some good tracks on but wasn't too into it until I went back a few years later (earlier this year actually) and loved it and got another couple of albums, but I never really knew anything about the band itself, when I checked them on allmusic the vast array of albums, line-up changes, compilations made me dizzy, I had to look away, unable to cope - where to begin? So the documentary was a blessing, explaining the feuds (Lemmy being hit over the head by muggers and the rest of the band unable to find him just leaving him there and continuing on their way being my favourite story) and giving pointers to the "essential" albums.

One odd thing was the appearance of Sam Fox in some sort of reunion show that happened. After some (approximately 30 seconds) research i discovered this page which runs through the documentary and says of Sam Fox's appearance:

Sam Fox’s appearance seems to be an example of Dave’s possibly misguided view that collaborating with minor league “celebrities” will somehow further the cause. On the other hand, she sang on the “Gimme Shelter” single so is a bona fide Hawkwind vocalist.

I like this understated "possibly misguided".

This site also points out that it was also probably misguided for the main Hawkwind geezer not to appear in the documentary, something I thought, especially as he seemed to know that the others would be appearing and therefore his side of the story would be pretty much ignored.

One of the strangest things I got from the documentary was the way they casually mentioned how they had influenced Punk Rock. Now, this may or may not be true, like I say I'm not up on the history of Hawkwind so couldn't really comment, but my main query was with the way the notion of influence was used. It seemed as though the members of Hawkwind claimed influence on Punk Rock by a simple preceding it in time, the argument was something along the lines of, "We were around in the seventies, at the same time as the future punk rockers were growing up so they obviously knew our music therefore they must have been influenced by them."

This, in a way, is a genius way of thinking about influence. It ignores individuality and personal genius in culture - Malcolm Mclaren created punk rock, but he stole everything off the New York Dolls who were the true geniuses, yeah but what about ... arguments, instead looking culture as a part of the wider society: nothing is born solely from genius, everything must be created out of what has gone before. So that Punk Rock, as a reaction against Prog rock, can be said to be influenced (if only negatively) by it.

There are two things worth thinking about from this:

1) The relationship between Prog Rock and Punk Rock. This is nothing new, isn't Television's "Marquee Moon" pretty much a Prog album disguised as Punk Rock? It's one of those subjects that I often mean to write about but never get round to (like those hundreds of other things I mean to write). Not only Prog's influence on Punk but vice versa, for instance viewing Pink Floyd's albums through the prism of punk-rock one sees themes that were previously obscured (as far as I was concerned anyway, but that's for the piece I may get round to one day...), plus Pink Floyd's "Animals" while being an album I love demonstrates a simplistic politics to match anything by The Clash.


2) By placing the development of Punk Rock in this context we can see that it is not in itself radical. This is important because now isn't it prog rock which is actually the most radical? Here we should point out this idea is already present in 1978 with punk at its height - Rock in Opposition noting the money involved in Punk rock, its radicalness already defeated (bought). This from a pamphlet handed out at the first RIO concert:

National borders do not matter any more. The struggle is between classes & ideologies & not nations. Organised culture industries creating pap & jamming it down everybody; throats have a vested interest in stifling all opposition. Preventing groups from working has been effective - until we start to organise our own work- buying up musicians & then putting the screws on has been a good second line of defence... but when they refuse to be bought?

How will an industry which can CREATE nothing survive when it can't steal anything any more... or will they steal our brains altogether instead?

The Punk Rock template of short catchy songs was always a fertile ground for the money men, for commercial use (both as product and as advertising accoutrement). And isn't it perfect for our current climate of superficial cultural consumption, taking and leaving, nothing to be taken seriously, whereas Prog Rock, with a certain amount of seriousness, of the need for immersion into long tracks, into ideas, into whole albums of ideas, is nothing if not counter to the spirit of the age where irony and simplicity rule.

I was always into punk rock, too young at the time but my musical education revolved around listening to old punk rock records, I still love many of them. It wasn't till I heard The Mars Volta that I began to catch up on some Prog Rock, and that mainly because it can sound so fresh. The Mars Volta blew me away when I first heard them, I became so immersed in their first album, it didn't wash over me, i had to put the work in, and, in modern rock terms, this came as a refreshing change.

Twinned with Liverpool

Thought I'd spend my skint saturday night in writing about Big Brother. It's been a while since i've posted on it, but as i'm here with only Match of The Day for company (and I want an excuse to keep away from the "Stevie G" free kick later) thought I might as well catch up (until theHawkwind documentary comes on later, looking forward to it).

So Big Brother. I'm getting a bit bored with people going on about how boring this series of Big Brother is. While I think it's a valid point that after 8 series the concept might be coming a little tired, could possibly do with a whole revamp, I do think that this series has been something of a return to form. It's the first series since, if my memory serves, series 3 that I've not stopped watching about halfway through. It was close. The new housemates thing always pisses me off (it goes back to the need for a revamp, instead of sticking with the format or completely renewing it, they use the stopgap of some new housemates, adding nothing but somehow it must make them feel that they are in some way addressing inertia), but I weathered the storm and I'm back into it.

Of course that's all to do with the twins.

I thought Charley leaving might ruin it, but no, the twins the thing (that's a Shakespeare reference if I've mangled it beyond recognition.)

I've been a fan since the beginning and they haven't let me down. They relentlessly refuse the ridiculous self examination that goes on all around them. The genius of Amanda resolutely refusing to comment on her relationship (or not) with Brian is an amazing contrast to the dithering, deliberation, analysis and general stupidity of everyoneelse's attempts - Liam and Amy and Ziggy and Chanelle and the constant worrying over perception. Of course it might be argues that Amanda's refusal is all about her worrying about perception but I really can't agree. Isn't it just that she doesn't like him (in that way) and rather than going hot/cold/hot/cold, getting drawn into somewhere she doesn't want to be, she just lets him bounce off her. The bit in the diary room where she refused to name Brian and instead cited Liam as her favourite housemate and the one she felt closest too: GENIUS.

Must one feel sorry for Brian. Please no. He knows, but he denies. The way he walks about the house trying to be a big shot like Liam, but failing miserably will hopefully cost him first place. Add to this his constant demand to talk about his "relationship" with Amanda to all and sundry and we have a stark contrast to Amanda's ... serenity.

And let's not forget Sam. Frankly I think I prefer Sam, quieter but with a certain dignity, she is perhaps even more of an enigma, giving nothing away ... "I love it!"

Plus the Diary room conversations together. Moments of true brilliance.

They must win.

Simple as.

(Darn! Finished too early, just as the Liverpool game comes on, must ... write ... more ...)

Had a nightmare on seeing the front page of the Daily Star yesterday which announced that Channel 4 were thinking of letting Chanelle back in the house. That would be a huge mistake surely and I really hope it's not true (these highlights seem to be a little biased, just all Liverpool, not how I remember the game...). Her hysterics are an interesting (and intensely annoying) contrast to the Twin's energy. And on a purely entertainment level do we really want to watch her and Ziggy constantly laid on beds talking shit? NO.

("Stevie G, Stevie G, Stevie G, Stevie G..." I hate football commentators. And Mike Riley, that was never a free kick, but "Stevie G" always gets his way. How I despise him, most overrated player bar none. As soon as I saw Mike Riley was the referee I regretted putting my money on Villa, although to be fair Steve Bennett was meant to be reffing it apparently and he lurves "Stevie G")

Hope this all makes sense cos I've been facing away from the PC and watching the football (and now Alan Hansen et al. crow on about "Stevie G" and even Hansen, part of the BBC Scouse Mafia, knows it wasn't a free kick) so haven't really read this through. Sorry if it's rubbish.

(Bring on Hawkwind!)

Beyond the cynicism

In some mighty coincidence after I finished the last post I saw this over at TMZ, demonstrating how the whole cynicism thing can sometimes be broken down, even if it's reporting doesn't manage to evade it

Celebrity Hypocrisy

Just a few thoughts on this survey which discovered that people are suffering from celeb fatigue.

I found the fact that the 2 per cent difference between those paying close attention to a Paris Hilton story and those paying close attention to a Lindsay Lohan story is cited as possible evidence that people may be getting sick of celebrity news coverage is itself, in some sort of marriage of form and content, indicative of a a certain ridiculous shallowness of news coverage no matter what the subject.

Which to me is precisely the point. It is not that there is too many celebrities on the news, the problem is the news itself and the fact that any news story covered is covered as a celebrity news story. If news networks suddenly decided to end all celebrity coverage would the news improve? No. Obviously not. The coverage of other stories would just be stretched in more ridiculous directions than it already is. Take the coverage of the US bridge collapse where on numerous channels there was an interview with a woman who had narrowly avoided the collapse. The story was nothing: she had avoided it by 'inches' on her way to collect her 6 week old baby [this from memory], the story seemed to involve her describing what might have been had she been in the collapse, how difficult it would have been for her husband to raise the baby alone. Now, that, to me, isn't in any way news. It hasn't happened, it won't happen. So maybe he has thought about it and to her it may be distressing or whatever, but it isn't news. Is it? Is it more newsworthy than Paris Hilton going in and out of prison?

Another example being the case of missing Madeline where the lack of any police media relations is causing great consternation among the media: no daily briefings, no inspector to focus on, just an awful crime. And an awful crime with (sadly) little to report. So the media snipe about how the portuguese police are rubbish for not playing the game and then they (the media) flail about looking for a suspect to celebritize. And of course, to keep the story in the public eye the parents have no choice put to become celebrities themselves, going on a european tour and appearing in (at least one, cos I saw the advert on the tv, maybe more) celebrity magazines.

And of course built into the news coverage of celebrities is the very idea that we are somehow above this. And this is why I think any critique of celebrity culture which attempts to stay aloof from it, ignore it, or deem it trivial misses the point entirely: this aloofness is already inherent in the reporting of celebrity (as anyone who spends anytime on TMZ or Perez Hilton (but especially Mollygood, which I have had to stop reading, so sanctimonious and hypocritical has it become) knows).

Whether or not my own response,embracing it, is in anyway better, is debatable, but at least it lacks hypocrisy.

Girl Talc

Most humorous newspaper correction, like, evah!

Because of a typographical error, a story on the Virgin Festival in the Aug. 6 Style section referred to Girl Talk's Greg Gillis as a one-trick phony instead of a one-trick pony.

Missing presumed male

M.I.A. was interviewed by Pitchfork and had this to say:

And I just find it a bit upsetting and kind of insulting that I can't have any ideas on my own because I'm a female or that people from undeveloped countries can't have ideas of their own unless it's backed up by someone who's blond-haired and blue-eyed.

First off I should say that I'm not really a big fan of hers, or more accurately I've not really heard anything by her. I've heard one song, and it was pretty cool, but I wouldn't like to voice an opinion based on hearing one song. Obviously I'm posting this story because it bears such a resemblance to the whole Avril Lavigne songwriting business that was popular a few weeks back.

The first thing that actually occurred to me when I was reading this story was that I had no idea about the 'identity' of Diplo. I've got a Diplo album, a couple of mixes and a few remixes, all of which I think are superb. I love Diplo. And yet I have no idea 'who' he is. It became apparent to me that until reading this interview with M.I.A. that I had just defaulted to the position of Diplo's maleness. I guess when reading stuff about him they were probably using the male pronoun but I had given it no thought. Ditto his ethnicity. I'm now assuming Diplo is blond and blue-eyed. Though by this point of the interview I think she's talking more generally but it seems like a fair assumption. Here of course it could be well be of interest that in my mental defaulting I had never thought of him this way - white. What does that say? That I have a hard time with the idea of white males making decent music? Possibly.

So is M.I.A. right? The female question we'll come onto but just a few words on the 'people from undeveloped countries' thing first. It's the ghetto of 'world music' isn't it? We can give people the right to make 'world music' and stroke our chins at the 'exotic' but it takes a Damon Albarn or (looking further back because i'm too lazy to give this section any major thought/research) a Paul Simon to bring this into mainstream consideration. (The phrase 'give people the right to make 'world music'', which I realise might be misconstrued, is accurate in the sense that we lump everyone's music outside of the established US/UK tradition into the barrel marked 'world music', in a sense saying this is your music and this is ours, thus marking off the other, separation) Thus M.I.A.'s point is that the crossover can only happen when their is a figure from the US/Uk tradition acting as chaperone, as guarantor if you like. We can only allow such music out of the ghetto if there is someone to accompany it (back, being implied, like a visa which expires after a month or so). Thus we see that whereas postmodernism is meant to be about diversity, the picking and choosing of absolutely equal cultural elements to create something new, it is a myth and that certain cultural elements still have dominance - that while other elements can be included, they can only be included on our terms - in a similar way that we continuously stress the need for free trade, but that free trade always means free trade on our terms.

As for the other thing, the question must be: are we still in the grip of the myth of the (male) solitary genius creating art? I think there's an interesting comparison to made with the career of Justin Timberlake, whose part in the creation of his music is (I presume) in as much doubt as Avril Lavigne's/M.I.A.'s and yet who is now (seemingly) considered a genius, so that when the story of Timbaland working with Duran Duran began circulating it became the story of Justin Timberlake producing the new Duran Duran record. The only exception allowed being the figure of the mystical female artist a la Joanna Newsom. Why the difference if all things are equal?

And yet isn't the bigger point that, for whatever reason, we are not yet prepared to leave this myth behind? It is not so much that x bloke takes the credit for y's record, it is more that when y is making a record she has to employ one already recognisable male creator to work on the record (in fact it can be argued that this applies to males as much as females, cf. %0 cent's new single featuring Timberlake). It is as if this creator becomes some entry into the world of serious art, whereas before I was just making music, now I am making Music, now you'll see how serious I am.

And isn't this why Avril Lavigne becomes some sort of subversive figure? In that she (so far) refuses this x, this one figure (father figure?), this artist - and at the same time refuses the responsibility of her own creativity, keeping the process of the creation of her music in the ether (and I accept I exaggerate), always open to speculation because it refuses the authority that comes with either x (the male creator) or y(the mystical female artist)?

Machine Music

Just read this in a Patricia Highsmith Novel:

Worst for Ralph to endure was the nonstop music, not plain noise, not merely one banal and blaring song, but two or three mixed. Even this had a bright side, relieved it of the label of music, which Muzak still had, music with a beginning and an end. This was insane mankind piling disorder upon disorder. If it deafened and killed people, more people were born every day. The cacophony never had to stop, because machines created it.

Give me some of that music!