Finally, finally, Lloyd is gone from the X-Factor. With the departure of Jedward, it means it's truly back to being the competition it was envisioned as being.
Ask me 4 years back about my opinion on Pop and American Idol, X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent and all their ilk, and you would have got a very different response. In an interview for my secondary's paper, as the frontman of one of the school's top bands, I was downright vitriolic. It remains true that I would never go on any of them (unless as a featured artist or a judge), but I have to admit to being drawn into the panto of reality based shows. Having since worked closely with the brilliant Andrew Muir (2008 Britain's Got Talent Finalist), I also realised that they are sometimes a great platform or stepping stone for talented people who otherwise would get no exposure. I don't even mind the incestuosness of the situation, the endless procession of Sony artists or show affiliates who perform, thus, apparently, securing their position at or near the top of the charts the following week. I'd argue that, as long as people are aware of what's going on, then it's good, healthy competition for the music industry, like this generation's Top Of The Pops (except, of course creating rather than reflecting the charts).
All of which is why I get so angry with the British public, most of whom don't seem to have a fucking clue what the show is. From the Xtra Factor's People's Panel and guest panel, to Facebook, to Twitter, to the papers, so many people have totally missed the point. I'll break it down, point by point:
This show is NOT a popularity contest. First and foremost, this is an important point. How much you like the person singing is irrelevant unless that affects your opinion of the music. It sometimes does mine - I have difficulties appreciating Radiohead because Thom Yorke's head is so far up his own arse, it's a wonder you can hear him sing. But we should all be adult enough to separate art from the artist. Does the fact that the Gallagher brothers are twats make their music worse? No. Does the fact that Lloyd and Jedward are nice enough blokes make them better singers or performers? Not by a long shot. This intangible thing people don't like about Danyl is either latent homophobia (on the case of Danny Dyer, for example), or some other irrelevant thing (he has cow eyes, he opens his mouth too wide). We're now finally at the point where we have 4 acts who are talented enough to produce a single worth buying. That's one thing this show is about.
It's NOT about making people's dreams come true. It's not some absurd extension of Jim'll Fix It or the Make A Wish Foundation. It's a talent contest. Yes, Stacey's obviously a lovely lass (although they have rather glossed over her extremely early pregnancy - she's only 20, for chrissakes), but she's still the weakest singer left in the competition. She's the only one who hasn't produced a wow moment for me - Danyl and Joe have had loads, and Olly really won me over last night. It's academic now, but Louis' endless crap about "two young boys living their dream" is irrelevant. We're not here to help them. They're here to help us.
It's NOT about who has improved the most. If you start crap, and get good, you're still not as good as someone who starts amazing and stays amazing. They don't have "most improved" medals in the Olympics. The music industry isn't very forgiving like that. So all this bull about Joe being "too good" or "too perfect" is just that, bull. You have to judge on an absolute scale, not by the individual goals and achievements of each act.
It's NOT about voting for people who come from the same place as you - I'm looking at you, Essex and Wales especially. This is not the fucking Eurovision song contest. Where someone comes from is broadly irrelevant as to what capacity they have to make good music. It might influence their style a little, but there's hardly an Essex style or a Welsh style or a Geordie style. There's just good music and not good music. Get over yourselves.
This show IS absolutely about having the best artists at the end, and the best of them getting a recording contract. Or at least, that's what it's supposed to be. But until the British public wake up, and start treating it as what it is, rather than a joke, or a popularity contest, its detractors will have genuine ammunition. Obviously, some of you undoubtedly think it's a joke by definition. Fine, don't participate. But for the rest of you, it's not about what you want from the show. There's entertainment enough already. The more you lose sight of what this kind of competition is, the more often we'll get served duds like Leon Jackson and Shayne Ward, and miss out on those genuinely talented people who don't have any other chances...
Sunday 29 November 2009
Monday 23 November 2009
So after reading this article (don't worry, I haven't taken to reading the Telegraph, I was linked to it), I decided to test the waters, throw myself to the dogs, and various other risk-taking metaphors. It may surprise some of you to know I was accepted. There are a few possible conclusions that can be drawn from both my inclusion, which will be at least in part defined by your estimation of how attractive I am, and about the phenomenon generally. Bear in mind these are only possible conclusions, I'm not saying these are all necessarily true (or false)...
- Not many British people had applied, meaning there was a high chance the sample was skewed. This depends on what you consider a statistically viable sample - it does say that out of 295,000 UK residents who applied, only 35,000 were successful. The UK population is roughly 61,360,000, so that's 1 in every 208 Brits applied, and 1 in every 1753 who was accepted.
- The sort of British people who apply to 'dating sites' in general, or ones that are beauty specfic in particular, are not attractive or instead conform to some idea of beauty which is very British and not internationally recognised. See, for example, the predilection for heavy make-up, tracksuits, our spiralling obesity problem and 'bad teeth' reputation etc.
- The majority of British people are simply generally not very attractive by world standards. It's a possibility, even if it might seem ludicrous - I don't know about you, but my opinion of someone's physical attractiveness is frequently affected by other things. For example, I used to think J-Lo was fit, but since hearing about what an unmitigated bitch she is, I don't find her attractive any more. It could be that a poor world view of the UK consciously or subconsciously makes Brits seem less attractive.
- Some particular trend or idea of beauty became commonplace on the site early on and is self-propogating. I have to say, this seems quite likely to me, and is definitely backed up by my browsing and experience of the site, and some of the comments on the original Telegraph article - I have seen a lot of Scandinavians and South Americans and precious little in the way of ethnic diversity.
Monday 16 November 2009
Defending the indefensible
Sometimes justice almost works but I'd be tempted to put an even harsher sentence on this idiot than a 20 week suspended sentence. Firstly, she's the sort of moron that stone-age prohibitionists point to when they preach about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. This woman gives those cretins ammunition through her own stupidity and lack of restraint.
Secondly, this is absolutely no fucking defence:
This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, which are undeniably reprehensible, selfish and reckless in the extreme. She does, however, deserve a second chance, but only if she cleans up. She has shown she cannot exercise restraint, and so cannot be trusted with drugs or alcohol if she is to continue interacting with her children. To that end, I'm not sure I agree with the judge's decision to publicise her name. Of course she should be made to feel ashamed (if she doesn't already), but rooting for "open justice" might have sunk her chance for redemption.
These children deserve a mother, and at the age of 4, they might be too young to remember the incident. But the upshot of a public verdict is that in all likelihood this woman and her kids will never be allowed to forget what happened. Is it fair that the children live in the shadow of this, or live without a mother? I am not saying Stevenson should get away with what she has done, but I'm not entirely sure what the judge was trying to achieve through "open justice"...
Secondly, this is absolutely no fucking defence:
Seriously, if someone's a slut and bereft of common sense and any sort of foresight, that doesn't in any way mitigate or absolve their actions. Call me a cynic, but I highly doubt this woman found 3 different men she truly loved, all by the age of 22, and was with each of them long enough to make an informed decision about whether to have a child or not. She is the definition of a train wreck, and if there were any circumstances that would merit compassion, like a difficult childhood, a death in the family or whatever, then surely they should/would have been mentioned as part of the defence (assuming sense on the part of the BBC), ahead of some break-up with the latest of her baby daddies.Richard Bennett, defending Stevenson, said she was a 22-year-old with four young children by three different fathers who had found her life "extremely difficult and distressful".
He said: "There can be no doubt that this young woman was under a great deal of stress.
"She was depressed because of the break-up of her long-term relationship with the father of the two boys."
This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, which are undeniably reprehensible, selfish and reckless in the extreme. She does, however, deserve a second chance, but only if she cleans up. She has shown she cannot exercise restraint, and so cannot be trusted with drugs or alcohol if she is to continue interacting with her children. To that end, I'm not sure I agree with the judge's decision to publicise her name. Of course she should be made to feel ashamed (if she doesn't already), but rooting for "open justice" might have sunk her chance for redemption.
These children deserve a mother, and at the age of 4, they might be too young to remember the incident. But the upshot of a public verdict is that in all likelihood this woman and her kids will never be allowed to forget what happened. Is it fair that the children live in the shadow of this, or live without a mother? I am not saying Stevenson should get away with what she has done, but I'm not entirely sure what the judge was trying to achieve through "open justice"...
Thursday 5 November 2009
Things that make me lose faith in humanity
Please watch this video without reading any of the comments or the rest of my blog. Do so with an openish mind.
Now, the video itself is quite pleasant, other than occasional cinematographic hints which imply content and judgement, like the camera resting a little too long on words like immigration and money transfer. It is a video showing an apparently happy, lively community, with people working and contributing to the economy. It is the annotations that make this disturbing. Firstly, simple factual errors and lies, like the idea that only 8% of the world's population is white, which is clearly and quickly disproved by a google search
But there are more disturbing claims, like Peckham being a hotbed of crime. We do not see ANY crime in this 10 minute video. Another quick search does show Peckham as a bit of a dangerous place, but this is a) put in better perspective by comparison to other city centres rather than national averages containing rural statistics and b) more of an argument against ghettos than immigration. Yes, problems can arise when people band together rather than integrating - this is my only problem with the multicultural system as we run it, that I don't believe there is sufficient desire for or pressure on first generation immigrants to integrate into British society. I think people living in Britain should at least be able to speak English, and should speak it wherever possible, in the interests of courtesy, fairness and integration. While I recognise that some things are not translatable, or that it's rare to be able to express yourself as freely and readily in a second language as in your mother tongue, people who have come to live here will never improve their English if they default to speaking their own language because it's easier.
But language aside, there is little else problematic with multiculturalism. Certainly, my father and I, who probably fall under that bracket of "middle class liberals" or whatever the horrific annotations brand us as, went to Harringey last week to "celebrate" the multiculturalism in the form of the amazing Turkish restaurants they have there. It's a Turkish sector, but it hasn't descended into a ghetto, because the inhabitants recognise the need to be part of the greater society which surrounds them. This is part of the key to stop ghettos forming - you can't force people not to live near each other, but you can educate or show them that there is no need to seek out familiarity and safety, or that, if they do, that they are still part of a wider network. It's precisely marginalisation and attacks like those of the BNP on Peckham and other 'ghettos' that will force them to become more and more insular from the world they perceive as a threat.
Further to this is the implication that only immigrants commit crime. Now I've been beaten so badly by a Colombian who was trying to steal my phone that I ended up in hopsital. But I've had as much if not more problems from white chavs as any other racial group. There's an assumed causality here by the BNP, that black people commit crimes because they are black, rather than because they are marginalised or poor, often because of the colour of their skin or the language they speak.
All this comes on the back of further small-mindedness in the States. Last week, if you didn't know, voters in Maine repealed state legislation allowing gay marriage. In a virtual rerun of Proposition 8, right down to ridiculous claims and outright lies like "Gay marriage will be taught in schools", idiocy and bigotry prevailed again. Such tactics are also to be found across the fight for healthcare reform, with lies about death panels and compulsory insurance, tying healthcare to the Nazis, or in the White House's War on Fox News, and their phantom ratings spike.
Seeing as my political beliefs and affiliations are complex and manifold, I will say this: as long as the right continues to use the tactics of fear, hate, half-truths and lies, they will undermine any genuine credibility that they may have. It is sometimes a malaise of the left too, but oh so much more rarely. So you can spout your figures on how many people listen to the Limbaughs, the Becks, the Hannitys, and the Griffins of this world, but until they cut the bullshit and start talking in simple truths, they are simply doing a disservice both to the truth of there arguments, such as it exists, and the people who follow them. It's bonfire night, people. 404 years ago, a man with a revolutionary spirit built a bomb to kill a King. Tonight, it is probably too much to hope for that the same revolutionary spirit might overcome those who blindly follow the shit-stirring demagogues of this world. But we can console ourselves with this - since a lot of the BNP and Republican support is elderly, the sound of the fireworks might cause a spate of heart attacks, clearing the way for gays, immigrants and healthcare reform across the world...
If only...
Now, the video itself is quite pleasant, other than occasional cinematographic hints which imply content and judgement, like the camera resting a little too long on words like immigration and money transfer. It is a video showing an apparently happy, lively community, with people working and contributing to the economy. It is the annotations that make this disturbing. Firstly, simple factual errors and lies, like the idea that only 8% of the world's population is white, which is clearly and quickly disproved by a google search
But there are more disturbing claims, like Peckham being a hotbed of crime. We do not see ANY crime in this 10 minute video. Another quick search does show Peckham as a bit of a dangerous place, but this is a) put in better perspective by comparison to other city centres rather than national averages containing rural statistics and b) more of an argument against ghettos than immigration. Yes, problems can arise when people band together rather than integrating - this is my only problem with the multicultural system as we run it, that I don't believe there is sufficient desire for or pressure on first generation immigrants to integrate into British society. I think people living in Britain should at least be able to speak English, and should speak it wherever possible, in the interests of courtesy, fairness and integration. While I recognise that some things are not translatable, or that it's rare to be able to express yourself as freely and readily in a second language as in your mother tongue, people who have come to live here will never improve their English if they default to speaking their own language because it's easier.
But language aside, there is little else problematic with multiculturalism. Certainly, my father and I, who probably fall under that bracket of "middle class liberals" or whatever the horrific annotations brand us as, went to Harringey last week to "celebrate" the multiculturalism in the form of the amazing Turkish restaurants they have there. It's a Turkish sector, but it hasn't descended into a ghetto, because the inhabitants recognise the need to be part of the greater society which surrounds them. This is part of the key to stop ghettos forming - you can't force people not to live near each other, but you can educate or show them that there is no need to seek out familiarity and safety, or that, if they do, that they are still part of a wider network. It's precisely marginalisation and attacks like those of the BNP on Peckham and other 'ghettos' that will force them to become more and more insular from the world they perceive as a threat.
Further to this is the implication that only immigrants commit crime. Now I've been beaten so badly by a Colombian who was trying to steal my phone that I ended up in hopsital. But I've had as much if not more problems from white chavs as any other racial group. There's an assumed causality here by the BNP, that black people commit crimes because they are black, rather than because they are marginalised or poor, often because of the colour of their skin or the language they speak.
All this comes on the back of further small-mindedness in the States. Last week, if you didn't know, voters in Maine repealed state legislation allowing gay marriage. In a virtual rerun of Proposition 8, right down to ridiculous claims and outright lies like "Gay marriage will be taught in schools", idiocy and bigotry prevailed again. Such tactics are also to be found across the fight for healthcare reform, with lies about death panels and compulsory insurance, tying healthcare to the Nazis, or in the White House's War on Fox News, and their phantom ratings spike.
Seeing as my political beliefs and affiliations are complex and manifold, I will say this: as long as the right continues to use the tactics of fear, hate, half-truths and lies, they will undermine any genuine credibility that they may have. It is sometimes a malaise of the left too, but oh so much more rarely. So you can spout your figures on how many people listen to the Limbaughs, the Becks, the Hannitys, and the Griffins of this world, but until they cut the bullshit and start talking in simple truths, they are simply doing a disservice both to the truth of there arguments, such as it exists, and the people who follow them. It's bonfire night, people. 404 years ago, a man with a revolutionary spirit built a bomb to kill a King. Tonight, it is probably too much to hope for that the same revolutionary spirit might overcome those who blindly follow the shit-stirring demagogues of this world. But we can console ourselves with this - since a lot of the BNP and Republican support is elderly, the sound of the fireworks might cause a spate of heart attacks, clearing the way for gays, immigrants and healthcare reform across the world...
If only...
Monday 2 November 2009
It's been said
Nicholas Lezard's facile views on Twitter make you wonder whether he has ever taken time to use the service.
But I just thought I'd add my voice to those emphasising that Twitter is just a medium through which people interact. One might argue that the arbitrary 140 word limit encourages banality, but one would be wrong. It encourages succinctness - brevity, as they say, is the soul of wit, and Twitter is wit personified (it's in the name).
As a Facebook user, I used to be sceptical about Twitter - what's the point of a site that basically just gives Facebook status updates? But when I joined, I discovered a whole different ethos. You can get an insight into celebrities, and learn that John Cleese and Ross Noble are genuinely mental, that John Mayer is a brilliant pun machine, or that Eddie Izzard is sadly boring. You can discover articles and websites and jokes you might never have otherwise come across. You can keep in touch with friends who don't use Facebook, or are Twitterati themselves.
Because updates are all there is to Twitter, rather than the wealth of information of a Facebook page, people update all the time, and not just with the minutiae of what they're eating. You say that the downfall of Trafigura could have been accomplished by an "ordinary online campaign". Which is what, exactly? To match Twitter in this, you'd be talking emails or campaigns reaching or a website visited by hundreds of thousands of people in half a day. Twitter facilitates things like showing Jan Moir as the hateful and misguided slime that she is, or publically outing absurd injunctions like Carter Ruck's.
To summarise in the form of a Twitter post:
Twitter is simply a reflection of its users. So don't rag on a great form of social media just because you're afraid of some human stupidity
But I just thought I'd add my voice to those emphasising that Twitter is just a medium through which people interact. One might argue that the arbitrary 140 word limit encourages banality, but one would be wrong. It encourages succinctness - brevity, as they say, is the soul of wit, and Twitter is wit personified (it's in the name).
As a Facebook user, I used to be sceptical about Twitter - what's the point of a site that basically just gives Facebook status updates? But when I joined, I discovered a whole different ethos. You can get an insight into celebrities, and learn that John Cleese and Ross Noble are genuinely mental, that John Mayer is a brilliant pun machine, or that Eddie Izzard is sadly boring. You can discover articles and websites and jokes you might never have otherwise come across. You can keep in touch with friends who don't use Facebook, or are Twitterati themselves.
Because updates are all there is to Twitter, rather than the wealth of information of a Facebook page, people update all the time, and not just with the minutiae of what they're eating. You say that the downfall of Trafigura could have been accomplished by an "ordinary online campaign". Which is what, exactly? To match Twitter in this, you'd be talking emails or campaigns reaching or a website visited by hundreds of thousands of people in half a day. Twitter facilitates things like showing Jan Moir as the hateful and misguided slime that she is, or publically outing absurd injunctions like Carter Ruck's.
To summarise in the form of a Twitter post:
Twitter is simply a reflection of its users. So don't rag on a great form of social media just because you're afraid of some human stupidity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
