Monday 19 January 2015

Vanity Publishing from the Tower of Babel - or The Social Media Life

The Tower Of Babel


This blog entry is probably the one I should have inaugurated this online repository of my thoughts with. It’s the explanation to the question why – why do a blog? And therefore an introduction to the same. However when I started this endeavour, it was in a fit of enthusiasm – as these things often are and gripped by a sense of urgency, I sat down to my keyboard and relatively effortlessly pontificate upon the subject of gentrification and the closing a musical establishments.
It seemed pretty well received – what I would call a respectable number of my social network had a look and I was happy. But then two things happened in rapid succession that swayed my resolve and led to me questioning my true motivation to write.
Firstly the issue in the news (in the USA) I wanted to write on was shoved far down the totem pole of current events (in Paris) and secondly my return to broadcasting in Resonance FM (in my own eyes at least) was not met with the expected welcome, despite the fact a actually had a lot of immediate very positive feedback. The problem was that the listens on Mixcloud were in no way comparable to the views for my first blog entry for example.
All of a sudden I was literally paralysed with my mind was continually flashing the question – why bother? If no one’s listening why bother? But I was also plagued by a more disturbing question – why are you concerned with whether the topic you want to write about is ‘hot’ or not? When I conceived this blog it was (as I mentioned in a Facebook post) because I felt that rather than really helping encourage better conversation, the sound bite nature of posting and commenting on social networks is dumbing down our ability to debate. It narrows our daily thought processes. However my new apparent feelings of trepidation also made me consider how much our collective vanity has been manipulated to a perhaps unprecedented level.


I am not mentioning anything new but at least  I am mentioning it. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube are like fast food chains in the way they have us expecting a near instant pay off. Hits, like, favourites, shares and reposts – we want our burger and we want it now. A society that is riddled with racially informed police brutality is something that may very well be worth discussing at length  – but if it’s yesterday’s news and now everyone’s talking about ‘Charlie’ do is it still worth mentioning? That consideration made me realise that being a broadcaster I had in fact been sucked into the media vortex of newsworthiness, no matter how consciously I might rail against it’s pull and I had to wonder whether it’s acknowledgement nay adulation that was really driving me.
On Facebook (and the rest)there is an eternal competition to post the funniest and/or coolest – whatever you post it broadly falls into those two categories. Some people are political, some musical, some into film – but whatever the ostensible subject matter though it really does come down to be seen as cool or funny. It’s a popularity contest pure and simple. It’s fine to come up with a witticism oneself but ultimately someone else’s rejoinder or platitude will do just as well. Some things haven’t changed and ultimately the biggest voices still obviously get the greatest kudos – a repost by someone celebrated will earn you more points than if you said it yourself if you are a ‘nobody’. Others may well deny hourly counting the likes and comments on their posts but I had to face up to the fact that not all my intentions in blogging may have been honourable. And it made me pause – for several days. I really didn’t want to write a blog just to feed my own vanity. If it was going to be all about the likes I’d rather not do it.


That revelation led me to confront the next obvious challenge to myself as follows - what was I then doing it for and what in fact is the value of such outpourings over the internet? If you are not a celebrity (remember there are several levels of this) then you may not actually be able to quantify  much that’s tangible that has happened as a result of what you post. If you are a celebrity that will not put you above mockery even when you are airing the sincerest of beliefs. In two very well known cases the power of Twitter for example has been shown to be somewhat exaggerated – the Arab Spring and the protests over Ferguson. In the former case, although former President Mubarak was ‘ousted’, the BBC reported (29 November 2014) that ‘A court in Egypt has dropped charges against former President Hosni Mubarak over the killing of 239 protesters during the 2011 uprising against him.’ The Middle East itself does not seem to be rid of turmoil due to Arab Spring although the Western media promoted it as being not only galvanised but relying on Twitter. In Ferguson no charges were brought against the police officer who killed Michael Brown protests continued and in fact at least two other individuals were shot dead in that and a neighbouring area. A number of high profile names been well documented in leaving the same network after rolling with some rejoining unable to deny it’s lure.I believe it is said that love makes fools of us all – but Social Media makes dresses head to toe in the robes of the court jester.

Were deaths of unarmed young black men knocked off the #1 spot in the
Twitter Outrage Charts by the  Charlie Hebdo killings?

It was at this point that I was able to reconnect with real reasons I wanted to do this. They are purely selfish but I believe they have a virtue notwithstanding that. Firstly I wanted to begin again to flex my intellectual muscles. I like, I love debate and I love the written word also – so this was an easy way to get back into writing and maybe start on the journey to becoming an essayist. I ponder, muse, consider and sometimes I don’t have a forum into which to unleash the products of those actions – but I realised I do. Secondly if by doing this I can actually engage in a interesting debate with someone of some people who share the need to discuss, then that would be great. Third and the most vainglorious – if any of my writings were to inspire any to action then my purpose would be fully served – of course those actions would have to sit with what my own ego demands – which thankfully makes this third wish the least likely and makes it as good as theoretical. The fact is even if ‘my’ ideas were taken on board by a large amount of people the likelihood that the ideas they regurgitated would actually be mine is pretty much impossible. Take for instance one of the arguably most influential men in history – Jesus – even the words attributed to him in the various versions of his Gospel that exist are not pretty much turned on their head by the opulence and wealth seen in many of it’s denominations and churches. Even surely these denominational differences (on the surface to do with interpretation of ‘his’ word, but arguably as much to do with power and dominion) seem quite contrary to the unity he preached. I am in no way making or seeking a comparison, I am simply stating that the most celebrated of individuals can have very little control over their message - not unless they are a despot.
To my eyes our use of the internet has turned us into to super vain, affirmation seeking, vanity publishers in a new Tower Of Babel. The majority of chatter we see online is just that – babble. It is my vowed intention to spend very little time commenting on it but I really had to get this out of the way now before proceeding. I grant that there is a certain amount of vanity in deeming one’s own ideas in any way suitable for making available on a public level but I sincerely hope and attest that is not the same thing as figuratively screaming from the rooftops ‘I’m here look at me!’. Debate and discussion can lead to new, rediscovered and most importantly improved ways thinking and therefore living and to be part of such a discussion is for me would be enough.


Tuesday 6 January 2015

Oligarchy, MP3s and the Ghostown

‘This town, is coming like a ghost town, All the clubs have been closed down...’
(The Specials - Ghost Town - 1979)





Sound familiar? If you live in then Except in the main it’s no because of ‘too much fighting on the dance floor’


This past weekend has seen Plastic People in the Old STreet area close, recently we’ve also seen Madam Jojos closes (this one some have partly attributed to  a violent incident) but
on 19 January the 12 Bar club on Denmark Street - is due to close. The Astoria shut. Rehearsal studios are also  going to the wall, Meanwhile Arts funding has been cut to due to ‘necessary’ austerity measures.


 12 bar to shut - NME.com



Back in the day it used to be called ‘progress’ now they call it gentrification - those who despair of it’s effects call it social cleansing. The t pattern is generally as follows -  artists (white often middle class) move in to impoverished areas seeking cheap rents, find them, make the areas attractive to more conformist and affluent types - bankers, accountants, etc. who in turn move in and drive rents up. This is the traditional gentrification model and in London (as in New York) we have seen that is several once notorious neighbourhoods - Hackney (murder mile), Dalston, Peckham.

 Hackeny gentrification - The Telegraph UK



The populations in these areas had generally been made up of generations of indigenous poor and immigrant low paid workers and unemployed without the ability to pay the steep rents - many of whom are therefore confined to social housing. Scandalous as this may be this population movement  it’s par for the course - it’s not something that has really concerned society at large. 

Hipsters/trendies/hippies/beatniks - whatever they are called this season have always loved to ‘slum it’ and populations they displace the mainstream really doesn't care about. But this pattern also does not explain why the venues mentioned above are closing - they are not in impoverished areas - even Earl’s Court has seen it’s last gig but here’s where we can make the connection - where things get interesting because much like the violence seen against protesters in the marches against cuts the (maybe not so better off) middle class are literally and metaphorically finally being hit. Now it seems to be starting to matter after all.


Business is taking over, cappuccinos and condos are in; character (local communities) and culture (venues) are out. Like in 1981 when the Specials sang ‘Government leaving the youth on the shelf ...No job to be found in this country’ in 2014 we have a Conservative government. I know people who voted for it seemingly thinking it’s ‘alliance’ with the Liberal Democrats would temper them - seemingly those people are not fans of history.


Now there might be more jobs - if working for your benefit can be called a job - which actually it is now.But we might want to ask ourselves what is the upshot of all this going to be - low paid menial service jobs for workers in bland suburbs while city centres are reserved for the rich. And then is that we might question  - just who the government is for.



We live in a so called ‘democracy’ but if we for a moment consider other forms of government and consider the word Oligarchy and it’s definition we discover that Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía)... is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control..


Now doesn't that sound very familiar?


Recently a certain Russell Brand has called for a revolution - (book on sale included) and has been regarded by many from varied quarters (not just the oligarchs) with disdain. Scorn has been poured on his apparent ‘don’t vote’ message. The fact remains however that instead of the power resting with the majority of the populace it in fact ‘effectively rests with a small number of people’ and this is the point that resonates with me. The people connected with that ‘small number’ find it extremely effective to vote - since they will directly benefit - the rest - don’t seemingly have anyone to represent them - at least anyone that can effect real change or even maintain a level of security in the lifestyles of ‘the rest’. I have argued with a few friends of mine at length about this ‘don’t vote’ message simply because I understand it and haven’t voted in a while.




All very intriguing you might respond but where is this all going, and how does that even link with the MP3s you mentioned in the title?


Well when mp3s first started getting popular and taking over the ‘net. I was all for it, having been someone who had bought a lot of music on Vinyl (which we just called records), CD and cassette it was an opportunity to possess again records i’d sold or given away or rarities I never had to chance to hear from artists I had supported financially for years. But of course that all changed and now we are in an area where songs can be streamed literally thousands of times before they generate a single penny - and I’m not talking for the artists i mean a penny in total. No longer attached to a physical object music has seeming lost it’s value. When something has no value it becomes valueless - this is maybe a seemingly pointless tautology but when it comes to what iS meant to be the Music Industry it seems the rules do not apply. Music is expected to be consumed for free - buying music is now something similar to say giving to a cause or sponsoring a run - it’s really charity which when given should be appreciated as if mana from heaven. This produces music that is bland, flavourless and throwaway and only the dwindling major labels can actually make anything approaching a decent amount of money from the new streaming model. The internet was exposed as the new frontier but it’s really an ocean dominated by a few super tankers where scale wise the majority of artists are plankton.


In a post on a well known social network I recently read in someone’s post words to the effect ‘how is life going to be when people are unable to go out to hear music and that’s one of the main thing’s that makes life in this system liveable’


I don’t know but i do know this - when populations like music have lost there value and all the prime real estate is only inhabited by the wealthy the dry, vanilla, homogeny will be complete and it will then be too late. If we don’t feed our souls - our souls will die and this town won’t even have the ghosts left in it.


Further suggested reading at links below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11260969/A-gentrified-Soho-is-terrible-news-for-London.html

Mark Ravenhill: Austerity 'could be good for arts'
Andrew Lloyd Webber: Arts at risk over austerity cuts