It's really gratifying to have been canvassed for this blog poll over at Sweeping The Nation, without even having to make a noise or volunteer myself:
http://sweepingthenation.blogspot.com/2008/01/uk-blogger-albums-of-2007-poll-results.html
Thanks folks!
Showing posts with label Blogosphere. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogosphere. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reports of the Death of Culture Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
NB: Personal View – not written in a work capacity.
Until next Monday morning, you can hear a rather excellent edition of the BBC World Service arts programme Culture Shock here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/culture_shock.shtml
I draw attention to this programme because of the presence of ‘Web guru’ Andrew Keen, who argues that various aspects of Web 2.0 (the Blogosphere, social networking websites, Wikipedia etc) are ‘killing our culture’ (whose culture specifically?). Obviously, as a keen blogger (no pun intended!), I have a clear interest to declare, but this doesn’t blind me to some of Keen’s more interesting statements.
He’s absolutely right to argue for personal responsibility online in the same way that we (should) expect it offline, and his argument that ‘we have to shape technology as much as it shapes us’ is powerful and important. Most of us are indeed aware that the internet is a very diverse space, awash with as much spin, opinion and disinformation as it is with useful resources. It’s also particularly vulnerable to extreme expressions, frequently without the backing of academic research. Wikipedia is an insightful example, as anyone who has seen some of the maliciously edited entries will no doubt testify.
He also had an interesting, if flawed, point to make about ‘anonymity’. His statement that ‘anonymity’ (neglecting the fact that complete anonymity on the web is next to impossible for anyone who isn’t a mastermind hi-tech criminal) ‘is a kind of theft’ is particularly audacious. By writing without declaring their true identities, bloggers and volunteer Wikipedia editors are taking without giving anything back, assuming kudos and expertise that they have not necessarily earned or proved. Well, perhaps, but an individual need not necessarily provide their name and address to demonstrate their credentials, even if only in the interests of personal security. Keen argues from this that ‘permissiveness about intellectual property is a vital social question.’ He doesn’t, however, discuss any practical questions about how we might restrict citizens’ contributions to the internet. He also doesn’t attempt to argue why the democratic ideal of freedom of speech should not also apply in the online realm.
It is also a massive logical leap between these positions and the alarmist notion that a ‘cult of the amateur’ is undermining expertise. I’m sorry to disappoint Keen, but I don’t believe that all professional journalists are corrupt rogues being bribed by PR companies or political interest groups. I do believe, however, that they have jobs to do, with specific audiences, business interests or shareholders in mind. This is not to say that any of this is inherently evil, just that it’s worth recognising the factors that may shape the work of professional journalists and experts. The word ‘amateur’ needn’t be negative. In my case, I hope it simply means that I’m not writing with a specific audience in mind; that I don’t have to write about a particular record simply because someone has been ‘kind’ enough to send me a free copy and that I’m relatively unconcerned about backing something that might turn out to flop. I can write about a wider range of music and film, focussing on aspects of art and culture for which I have genuine enthusiasm, thus aiming for a more positive approach.
Of course, I’m free to get things wrong without discipline or censure (and regular readers will hopefully recognise that I usually correct myself when I do) – but I’m also free to correct inaccuracies and errors in the professional media when I spot them. For a recent example, the NME (not a paper particularly respected for its journalists’ knowledge of jazz) reported the sad death of Joe Zawinul, but its news item was riddled with errors, not only claiming that Miroslav Vitous was a guitarist (in fact, he’s one of the greatest acoustic bassists in the world), but also claiming that he and Jaco Pastorius were members of Weather Report simultaneously – an interesting prospect that never actually happened (Vitous left in 1974, replaced by Alphonso Johnson, Pastorius didn’t join until 1976)! Why Keen thinks a professional news reporter for the NME is intrinsically more likely to have ‘expertise’ than me (an individual passionate about a massive range of music), I find a little baffling. Keen talks about individual amateur writers needing to be held to account, but one of our roles can be holding those professionals who fail to check their facts to an appropriate level of accountability themselves!
It’s also worth noting that the lines between ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’ may not be as clearly demarcated as Keen implies. A number of professional journalists also maintain blogs, where they have more space to exposit their thoughts (no word limits!) and more freedom to express individual views that veer away from a particular editorial line. For anyone interested in music, I would heartily recommend John Mulvey’s Wild Mercury Sound blog at the Uncut magazine website (which very successfully helps promote the magazine whilst challenging some of its limitations), Simon Reynolds’ blissblog or Marcello Carlin’s fascinating and inspired Church of Me as great examples of this.
Keen’s most contentious point is that blogs ‘collectively confuse popular opinion’. This is a wholly misguided statement in my view. Firstly, blogs are by their nature not a collective enterprise but rather the expression of individual views, some more carefully justified than others. In his response to Keen, trend tracker Tim Jackson argued that the phenomenon of blogging allowed individual voices to share some of the power traditionally held by employers, pressure groups, institutions and corporations. Can Keen really suggest that blogs are more influential in influencing public opinion than the tabloid press or broadcast media? This would assume that blogs are far more widely read than they actually are!
Rather flippantly, Keen states that ‘if culture is free then you get what you pay for and it’s usually crap.’ Keen has much of value to say, and his argument that the future of the web should depend more on expertise than hearsay is convincing. Yet his assumption that permissiveness always breeds decline and degradation is dangerous, and fails to credit individual internet users with enough intelligence to select which blogs to read and to corroborate whatever information they may find with other sources. It’s rather frustrating that, in the interview at least, Keen fails to differentiate between those bloggers with clear passion and enthusiasm for their subject, and those self-interested writers simply looking to promote themselves. I don’t feel that by writing and publishing this website, I’m somehow participating in a devaluation of culture, rigour and expertise. Instead I hope I’m helping to challenge commonly held assumptions about where expertise might lie, and perhaps even aid cultural discourse. It’s a fascinating debate, and it seems entirely appropriate that the BBC should give voice to someone emphasising rigour, fact-checking and expertise, important elements in the wider virtue of impartiality. However, the idea that ‘professional’ always equates with qualified and ‘amateur’ always means ignorant is itself misleading.
Until next Monday morning, you can hear a rather excellent edition of the BBC World Service arts programme Culture Shock here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/culture_shock.shtml
I draw attention to this programme because of the presence of ‘Web guru’ Andrew Keen, who argues that various aspects of Web 2.0 (the Blogosphere, social networking websites, Wikipedia etc) are ‘killing our culture’ (whose culture specifically?). Obviously, as a keen blogger (no pun intended!), I have a clear interest to declare, but this doesn’t blind me to some of Keen’s more interesting statements.
He’s absolutely right to argue for personal responsibility online in the same way that we (should) expect it offline, and his argument that ‘we have to shape technology as much as it shapes us’ is powerful and important. Most of us are indeed aware that the internet is a very diverse space, awash with as much spin, opinion and disinformation as it is with useful resources. It’s also particularly vulnerable to extreme expressions, frequently without the backing of academic research. Wikipedia is an insightful example, as anyone who has seen some of the maliciously edited entries will no doubt testify.
He also had an interesting, if flawed, point to make about ‘anonymity’. His statement that ‘anonymity’ (neglecting the fact that complete anonymity on the web is next to impossible for anyone who isn’t a mastermind hi-tech criminal) ‘is a kind of theft’ is particularly audacious. By writing without declaring their true identities, bloggers and volunteer Wikipedia editors are taking without giving anything back, assuming kudos and expertise that they have not necessarily earned or proved. Well, perhaps, but an individual need not necessarily provide their name and address to demonstrate their credentials, even if only in the interests of personal security. Keen argues from this that ‘permissiveness about intellectual property is a vital social question.’ He doesn’t, however, discuss any practical questions about how we might restrict citizens’ contributions to the internet. He also doesn’t attempt to argue why the democratic ideal of freedom of speech should not also apply in the online realm.
It is also a massive logical leap between these positions and the alarmist notion that a ‘cult of the amateur’ is undermining expertise. I’m sorry to disappoint Keen, but I don’t believe that all professional journalists are corrupt rogues being bribed by PR companies or political interest groups. I do believe, however, that they have jobs to do, with specific audiences, business interests or shareholders in mind. This is not to say that any of this is inherently evil, just that it’s worth recognising the factors that may shape the work of professional journalists and experts. The word ‘amateur’ needn’t be negative. In my case, I hope it simply means that I’m not writing with a specific audience in mind; that I don’t have to write about a particular record simply because someone has been ‘kind’ enough to send me a free copy and that I’m relatively unconcerned about backing something that might turn out to flop. I can write about a wider range of music and film, focussing on aspects of art and culture for which I have genuine enthusiasm, thus aiming for a more positive approach.
Of course, I’m free to get things wrong without discipline or censure (and regular readers will hopefully recognise that I usually correct myself when I do) – but I’m also free to correct inaccuracies and errors in the professional media when I spot them. For a recent example, the NME (not a paper particularly respected for its journalists’ knowledge of jazz) reported the sad death of Joe Zawinul, but its news item was riddled with errors, not only claiming that Miroslav Vitous was a guitarist (in fact, he’s one of the greatest acoustic bassists in the world), but also claiming that he and Jaco Pastorius were members of Weather Report simultaneously – an interesting prospect that never actually happened (Vitous left in 1974, replaced by Alphonso Johnson, Pastorius didn’t join until 1976)! Why Keen thinks a professional news reporter for the NME is intrinsically more likely to have ‘expertise’ than me (an individual passionate about a massive range of music), I find a little baffling. Keen talks about individual amateur writers needing to be held to account, but one of our roles can be holding those professionals who fail to check their facts to an appropriate level of accountability themselves!
It’s also worth noting that the lines between ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’ may not be as clearly demarcated as Keen implies. A number of professional journalists also maintain blogs, where they have more space to exposit their thoughts (no word limits!) and more freedom to express individual views that veer away from a particular editorial line. For anyone interested in music, I would heartily recommend John Mulvey’s Wild Mercury Sound blog at the Uncut magazine website (which very successfully helps promote the magazine whilst challenging some of its limitations), Simon Reynolds’ blissblog or Marcello Carlin’s fascinating and inspired Church of Me as great examples of this.
Keen’s most contentious point is that blogs ‘collectively confuse popular opinion’. This is a wholly misguided statement in my view. Firstly, blogs are by their nature not a collective enterprise but rather the expression of individual views, some more carefully justified than others. In his response to Keen, trend tracker Tim Jackson argued that the phenomenon of blogging allowed individual voices to share some of the power traditionally held by employers, pressure groups, institutions and corporations. Can Keen really suggest that blogs are more influential in influencing public opinion than the tabloid press or broadcast media? This would assume that blogs are far more widely read than they actually are!
Rather flippantly, Keen states that ‘if culture is free then you get what you pay for and it’s usually crap.’ Keen has much of value to say, and his argument that the future of the web should depend more on expertise than hearsay is convincing. Yet his assumption that permissiveness always breeds decline and degradation is dangerous, and fails to credit individual internet users with enough intelligence to select which blogs to read and to corroborate whatever information they may find with other sources. It’s rather frustrating that, in the interview at least, Keen fails to differentiate between those bloggers with clear passion and enthusiasm for their subject, and those self-interested writers simply looking to promote themselves. I don’t feel that by writing and publishing this website, I’m somehow participating in a devaluation of culture, rigour and expertise. Instead I hope I’m helping to challenge commonly held assumptions about where expertise might lie, and perhaps even aid cultural discourse. It’s a fascinating debate, and it seems entirely appropriate that the BBC should give voice to someone emphasising rigour, fact-checking and expertise, important elements in the wider virtue of impartiality. However, the idea that ‘professional’ always equates with qualified and ‘amateur’ always means ignorant is itself misleading.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Vanguard vs. The Old Guard
Why is it that veteran music journalists so often have to resort to petty dismissals of us poor, insignificant bloggers? It's one of Petridish's hot topics in The Guardian, and increasingly the likes of Krissi Murison in the NME and even Paul Morley have been chipping in (how ignorant and inexperienced we all are! It's like we're all spotty virgins or something...). Is it perhaps because they feel genuinely threatened by the fact that internet writers are helping to establish acts, and that traditional print journalism may be under threat? If so, they are merely contributing to their own downfall. Here's an interesting piece from Paul Morley:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2012799,00.html
Reading this, it's difficult to comprehend how Morley was ever at the forefront of a Zeitgeist. He now writes, and frequently speaks, in sentences clunkier and more verbose even than mine, and with a marked lack of critical acumen. There's no selective judgement on display in this piece - yes the likes of Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys et al have been overrated, but exactly who in any journalistic sphere has been portraying Adem as some sort of revolutionary master? He's a lovely chap who writes good songs, and there's nothing wrong with that. And if Morley was disappointed when he heard Spiritualized's 'Feel So Sad' (assuming he was still aware at that point), or even the Spiritualized of 'Ladies and Gentlemen...', I'm a bit baffled as to why, ditto the thrill that comes from the real passion and enthusiasm for music evident in the work of LCD Soundsystem's James Murphy.
Let's not forget that all the really over-hyped, mostly reactionary bands of the moment (The Kooks, Arctic Monkeys, Babyshambles, The (sinking) Feeling, The Hours et al) have all been zealously praised by print journos. Take a closer look at the acts I've found via the blogosphere - Arcade Fire, Burial, Benoit Pioulard, Subtle, Broken Social Scene, Beirut, Susanna and The Magical Orchestra, Bat For Lashes - the difference in judgement and breadth of interest immediately becomes apparent.
Marcello Carlin (an experienced and authoritative writer both in print and online) writes an interesting repost over at Church Of Me (http://www.cookham.blogspot.com), which is all the more fascinating because his subsequent piece on Judee Sill's 'Heart Food' is both passionate and sceptical, as all the best music writing should be.
On a completely different topic, it's of course not just music where amateur writing can prove illuminating. My old school friend Alex Stein maintains a very interesting blog called False Dichotomies http://www.falsedichotomies.com , with some carefully balanced explorations of Israel/Palestine in particular. I don't elect to write about politics much here, but I do try and keep informed! It strikes me that unhelpful schematic presentations of issues rarely help us understand them. My current bugbear is 'the conflict between national security and civil liberties'. The two aren't mutually exclusive - we can and should have both!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2012799,00.html
Reading this, it's difficult to comprehend how Morley was ever at the forefront of a Zeitgeist. He now writes, and frequently speaks, in sentences clunkier and more verbose even than mine, and with a marked lack of critical acumen. There's no selective judgement on display in this piece - yes the likes of Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys et al have been overrated, but exactly who in any journalistic sphere has been portraying Adem as some sort of revolutionary master? He's a lovely chap who writes good songs, and there's nothing wrong with that. And if Morley was disappointed when he heard Spiritualized's 'Feel So Sad' (assuming he was still aware at that point), or even the Spiritualized of 'Ladies and Gentlemen...', I'm a bit baffled as to why, ditto the thrill that comes from the real passion and enthusiasm for music evident in the work of LCD Soundsystem's James Murphy.
Let's not forget that all the really over-hyped, mostly reactionary bands of the moment (The Kooks, Arctic Monkeys, Babyshambles, The (sinking) Feeling, The Hours et al) have all been zealously praised by print journos. Take a closer look at the acts I've found via the blogosphere - Arcade Fire, Burial, Benoit Pioulard, Subtle, Broken Social Scene, Beirut, Susanna and The Magical Orchestra, Bat For Lashes - the difference in judgement and breadth of interest immediately becomes apparent.
Marcello Carlin (an experienced and authoritative writer both in print and online) writes an interesting repost over at Church Of Me (http://www.cookham.blogspot.com), which is all the more fascinating because his subsequent piece on Judee Sill's 'Heart Food' is both passionate and sceptical, as all the best music writing should be.
On a completely different topic, it's of course not just music where amateur writing can prove illuminating. My old school friend Alex Stein maintains a very interesting blog called False Dichotomies http://www.falsedichotomies.com , with some carefully balanced explorations of Israel/Palestine in particular. I don't elect to write about politics much here, but I do try and keep informed! It strikes me that unhelpful schematic presentations of issues rarely help us understand them. My current bugbear is 'the conflict between national security and civil liberties'. The two aren't mutually exclusive - we can and should have both!
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
This is the first post - so perhaps it's understandable that I'm experiencing a little performance anxiety. So far today has been one of those days where minor cock-ups have dominated. I've lost my wallet and subequently discovered I left it in a car. I've spilt water everywhere, spoiling some important documents. Anyway, I'll do my best. What you can expect from this blog is lots about the music and film I like, and most likely even more about what I adamantly dislike (I have to admit that I'm much better at articulating negative reactions than positive ones). So plenty about culture. I'll try and keep politics to a minimum - but there will no doubt come a time when I'll be unable to resist it.
Highlight of my week so far has been seeing Hot Chip live at the XFM X-Posure night at the Barfly on Monday. OK, so I'm biased as I used to play drums for them - and since then, I've seen them play roughly the same set about 100 times. Yet, there is no denying that they keep getting better and better. There's real humour and shameless energy in their performance now, and a genuine sense that they really are enjoying what they do. In a world where the worthless po-faced anthemic indie of Keane can grace the top 10 I find their poptastic synth crusading deeply encouraging. They've been described by the NME as 'gameboy bedroom funk' (or something along those lines). This is clearly meant as a complement, but it's a bit misleading. This is not computer game music - it's party music, with intelligent wordplay and celebratory conviction. When I was in Hot Chip, the band definitely had a split personality - divided between guitar-led mordant reflection (which many people compared with Will Oldham) and Timbaland/Neptunes inspired electronica. With 'Keep Falling' and 'The Ass Attack', they have possibly pushed the latter to a dizzying zenith. Whilst they now integrate together on stage perfectly (all five are staged in a line formation at the front of the stage) the path ahead is surely to re-introduce some of the more ponderous and reflective elements to their music. At the moment 'Krap Kraft Dinner' does this most effectively. At the very least, it has an irresistable chorus. I'm sure there will be many similar gems on the forthcoming debut album 'Coming On Strong', out in June on Moshi Moshi records. Check out their website for more details, they're always gigging (www.hotchip.co.uk).
I've picked up a few interesting records this week. 'The Pyramid Electric Co.' is actually the new album from Jason Molina, who now seems to trade under a variety of enigmatic monikers, including Songs:Ohia and The Magnolia Electric Co. Whereas his previous album was with an electric band, with substantial arrangements underpinned by a defiantly raw production, this is skeletal, underplayed and uncompromising. It contains just seven songs, most of them very long, some of them slightly meandering. All benefit from a palpably eerie atmosphere, and some wonderfully restrained guitar playing. Molina's voice is as striking as ever, and his bleak worldview is conveyed with striking clarity. With the benefit of a few more listens, this may prove to be his most original recording yet. It's available on vinyl (with a free CD version inside the sleeve) from Secretly Canadian records.
The wonderful Sufjan Stevens has returned with 'Seven Swans', unbelievably his first official UK release. Stevens is a musical chameleon who has produced splendid, lavishly arranged orch-pop with his last album 'Michigan' as well as some largely unlistenable electronica. This new venture gathers together the tracks that didn't fit on the 'Michigan' album, and mercifully seems to represent a retreat from his modest proposal to record an album for all 50 US States (after all, he can only stall for inspiration when he gets to Kansas, surely?). It's more economic than 'Michigan', and many of the songs build to cumulative effect. There's a lot of unadorned banjo playing, which is remarkably refreshing. His voice is soft and understated whilst the songs are suitably lilting. What is certainly new here is a religious dimension to the lyrics - a lot of vengeance and divine justice, demons and witches. I've yet to decide whether or not he's striving too hard for profundity. In terms of its sound though, this is as captivating and compelling an album as you might expect to hear all year.
I'd hate to end on a positive note - so I'll sign off today with a rant. Now I'm not a musical snob - I can admire pop music as much as the next man, but how shit is 'Amazing' by George Michael? In our office, we have radio 2 on all day and they seem to be forcing it upon us at least once an hour. It's that horrible leap between notes when he sings 'I think it's amaaaa-zing!' that makes me cringe most. Completely irrational, I know, but it's irksome. That coupled with the fact that the production is so bland and the lyrics so painfully earnest is causing me to suffer unwanted bouts of nausea at all-too-predictable intervals during the day.
A long post - I'll be doing some job applications tonight so no doubt there will be plenty of ranting about online forms in the next few days...
Highlight of my week so far has been seeing Hot Chip live at the XFM X-Posure night at the Barfly on Monday. OK, so I'm biased as I used to play drums for them - and since then, I've seen them play roughly the same set about 100 times. Yet, there is no denying that they keep getting better and better. There's real humour and shameless energy in their performance now, and a genuine sense that they really are enjoying what they do. In a world where the worthless po-faced anthemic indie of Keane can grace the top 10 I find their poptastic synth crusading deeply encouraging. They've been described by the NME as 'gameboy bedroom funk' (or something along those lines). This is clearly meant as a complement, but it's a bit misleading. This is not computer game music - it's party music, with intelligent wordplay and celebratory conviction. When I was in Hot Chip, the band definitely had a split personality - divided between guitar-led mordant reflection (which many people compared with Will Oldham) and Timbaland/Neptunes inspired electronica. With 'Keep Falling' and 'The Ass Attack', they have possibly pushed the latter to a dizzying zenith. Whilst they now integrate together on stage perfectly (all five are staged in a line formation at the front of the stage) the path ahead is surely to re-introduce some of the more ponderous and reflective elements to their music. At the moment 'Krap Kraft Dinner' does this most effectively. At the very least, it has an irresistable chorus. I'm sure there will be many similar gems on the forthcoming debut album 'Coming On Strong', out in June on Moshi Moshi records. Check out their website for more details, they're always gigging (www.hotchip.co.uk).
I've picked up a few interesting records this week. 'The Pyramid Electric Co.' is actually the new album from Jason Molina, who now seems to trade under a variety of enigmatic monikers, including Songs:Ohia and The Magnolia Electric Co. Whereas his previous album was with an electric band, with substantial arrangements underpinned by a defiantly raw production, this is skeletal, underplayed and uncompromising. It contains just seven songs, most of them very long, some of them slightly meandering. All benefit from a palpably eerie atmosphere, and some wonderfully restrained guitar playing. Molina's voice is as striking as ever, and his bleak worldview is conveyed with striking clarity. With the benefit of a few more listens, this may prove to be his most original recording yet. It's available on vinyl (with a free CD version inside the sleeve) from Secretly Canadian records.
The wonderful Sufjan Stevens has returned with 'Seven Swans', unbelievably his first official UK release. Stevens is a musical chameleon who has produced splendid, lavishly arranged orch-pop with his last album 'Michigan' as well as some largely unlistenable electronica. This new venture gathers together the tracks that didn't fit on the 'Michigan' album, and mercifully seems to represent a retreat from his modest proposal to record an album for all 50 US States (after all, he can only stall for inspiration when he gets to Kansas, surely?). It's more economic than 'Michigan', and many of the songs build to cumulative effect. There's a lot of unadorned banjo playing, which is remarkably refreshing. His voice is soft and understated whilst the songs are suitably lilting. What is certainly new here is a religious dimension to the lyrics - a lot of vengeance and divine justice, demons and witches. I've yet to decide whether or not he's striving too hard for profundity. In terms of its sound though, this is as captivating and compelling an album as you might expect to hear all year.
I'd hate to end on a positive note - so I'll sign off today with a rant. Now I'm not a musical snob - I can admire pop music as much as the next man, but how shit is 'Amazing' by George Michael? In our office, we have radio 2 on all day and they seem to be forcing it upon us at least once an hour. It's that horrible leap between notes when he sings 'I think it's amaaaa-zing!' that makes me cringe most. Completely irrational, I know, but it's irksome. That coupled with the fact that the production is so bland and the lyrics so painfully earnest is causing me to suffer unwanted bouts of nausea at all-too-predictable intervals during the day.
A long post - I'll be doing some job applications tonight so no doubt there will be plenty of ranting about online forms in the next few days...
Labels:
Americana,
Blogosphere,
Electronica,
Music,
Personal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)