So what do I tell you eh? I'm an English European. That is, I a was born in England, in Great Britain, in the United Kingdom, which is a part of Europe, which is in the EU. And I kinda like that.
Work as a nerd (as opposed to a geek). Sorta electronics. Nuff said.
I like the colour green. I am artist. I paint (oils mostly, generally figurative, almost always representational) and I draw (pen and ink, generally obscure fantastic). Whist I like photography, I suck.
I was in a band or two. Nothing to write home about. But I like music in general, and I rekon I'm probably indier than thou. I'll talk about music antil people stop me. If it's vaguely rock I probably like it. If its alternative I probably love it. If I don't, I probably have a reason why not.
I hate apostrophe's. I write, proffessionally, but I hate grammar and spelling (its pointless). Language is a living entity. If someone who is fluent in a language understand something as part of that language it is correct. There is no other qualification for something to be "correct" in a language. As such I hate, possibly more than anything else, people correcting other peoples grammar.... the nerve!
I text a lot, but never txt. Having said that, TXT is an abomination to be crushed.
Music is my first love, art and comedy come close second and third.
You can read my published works in HiFi+ (available from all good magazine stores).
If you really care /that/ much you can even go to www.markchilds.co.uk if you do, check out the cartoons please.
I agree with you completely, in every conceivable situation, except mine.
Because that’s the way we work isn’t it?
I mean, there are rules right? And we know they are there for he good of society, and we realize it would be terrible if they were to be ignored by the yobs, by the scum we see rising to the surface everywhere we look. But somehow, our situation is different. We know we are different. I mean, we, I, you… we are good people. We wouldn’t break the law, we wouldn’t rape old grannies, sitting alone and helpless. So we know that we are breaking little rules, little white-crimes. Crimes that aren’t really crimes.
But the important thing is that we don’t look like criminals. We don’t hang out on the street corner, we don’t talk loudly, we don’t wear street clothes. There are so many of those criminals around these days. You hear it on the TV, you read about it, so many of them. And that’s what’s important, that you aren’t one of those people.
Has it ever occurred to you that people in the papers, that they are you? Has it ever occurred to you that the people they are ranting against, they great lawless populous, just might mean your little suburban life?
Those things you do, the things you know aren’t right, but will never, ever be noticed, they are just one little discretion. How many other little suburban lives are there out there? If you add them together, how large is that army? Is there really another mass of people, an army of law breakers dragging our world down? A group fundamentally different to ours, people who aren’t good in their hearts, and so who’s breaking of the law really counts? Or is it just us?
And that does for the good things in life. We know someone should help. We know someone should do something about it. Why don’t they do something about it? Where are the massed good people? Why don’t they do something?
But your life is different. Your situation is different. Something, anything, any reason at all t ensure that it doesn’t apply to you.
Music is a progression. New music is, in general, better than old music.
Let me explain.
New music will always be influenced by old music. People cannot fail to hear music that has gone before and be moved and influenced by it in some way. Indeed, the people that actually write and perform music will be the ones must heavily influenced. The ones that care and feel strongly enough to go out and create music will be the ones that love music the most, the ones that have surrounded and enveloped themselves in music, both old and new.
So old music is undoubtedly important because of its influence. But does that mean it is “better” than new music?
Let me be clear about this, this is not easily definable, there are no clear boundaries here. There will always be levels of opinion. For instance, there will be people who think simply that there are some old bands that will always be better than new bands. Some will say the Beetles will forever be the best band, and no one will ever be better. And there are some that think the Beetles will forever be the best band BECAUSE they were the first, and so everyone following them is simply copying them.
That’s one level, a difference in the strength of that belief. And of course there is the fact that there clearly exists differences in how “good” bands are. There remains a difference between the Monkees and the Beetles, just as there is a difference between Pink and Doves.
So what am I saying?
Just what I have already said: that music is a progression. That styles come and go, round and round, but that achievement continues. We are not going round in circles, but up in a spiral. Every time punk comes back around it is developed further and improves appreciably.
There will always be bands that stand out, but they will ALWAYS be bettered. Old bands are not inherently better than new bands. Each band or artist will add something of their own into the pool of experience and knowledge. And each artist following will have that experience to draw from. And music as a whole will be better for it.
New music, as a whole, is, and always will be, better than old music
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Martin Luther King I had been wondering about this war thing that’s going on at the moment. So there’s two main sides amongst the people in the US and UK at the moment, those for and those against. Now it seems to me that we’ve all heard each others points of view, and are frankly pretty unlikely to change our own views. So there’s no use me saying what I think and trying to illicitly make you agree. Instead I thought I’d give you a little insight from another era.
Martin Luther King preached at an important time in America’s history. The country was divided and impoverished and the African-American community was starting to find its voice. In addition, and more importantly for what I have to say, America was deeply entrenched in Vietnam.
Re-reading MLK’s speeches, it becomes clear that, like all the great preaches throughout history, the message of his words has not faded one bit since they were spoken. Here I will offer a few quotes from his speech as he accepted the Nobel Peace prize, and from a rally about the Vietnam war.
“I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.”
Now, for those of you campaigning, for those of you involved in any way with the anti-war movement, take heed of these words, and listen closely to what follows…
”I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.”
And what could be more relevant? If you accept that MLK was an enlightened person, a person who understood how human reality works, how can you deny the truth in those words? This is not an easy lesson to obey, the right paths rarely are, but the undeniable truth it shines through. After the horror of 11th Sept, with the world, and especially the US, champing at the bit for war, do we accept its cynical notions? Does the world have to spiral down to destruction and violence? Violent retaliation is not, and never will be, our only resort. And as people speak out against oppression and censorship in Iraq they overlook oppression and censorship in their own regimes.
”They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent”
At this time, now, the worlds religious leaders are united in opposition to violence in Iraq. And the people of Europe, and the greater world, are beginning to find their voices in opposition of the governments that support violence. These people are being branded “Anti-patriotic” and similar by cynical governments and cowardly constituents. Here is what Martin Luther King had to say in his time:
“Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.”
If MLKs words are a hard pill to swallow let us understand that what he preached was revolutionary. People think of Christianity as a “soft” religion. It is anything but. If Christianity seems an easy path to follow, then you have mistaken it. Its words seem to be simple and common sense, but to follow them requires you to overcome your instincts. It requires you, you yourself, to turn away from retaliation and accept that peace will prevail if given the chance. If MLKs words are hard then study the last quote. What could seem less controversial? And yet, what is more revolutionary in these days even now? How far from this ideal are we still?
”I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.”
”I still believe that we shall overcome..”