When you can't see the Woods for the Terrys

I am fed up of people talking about bringing down the 'rich and powerful'. There is a thinly veiled jealousy inherent in the knee-jerk reactions of those members of the public who say things like "Such and such a footballer gets paid so much, their private lives are public concern", or "I pay for the tickets, so I pay his wages". In today's world, basically everybody pays everybody else's wages - the ideology of 'the customer is always right' does have a natural limit which is frequently passed over. I can't walk into a Sainsbury's and shout abuse at a checkout worker just because I pay their wages. So why do people feel like they in some way have some claim or ownership of John Terry or Tiger Woods or whoever?

That someone gets paid a lot or has a lot of money doesn't make them a bad person. Bill Gates has done more for charity, humanitarianism and the general cause of philanthropy than entire EU countries. Obviously, one can argue that he could always stand to give more (the tale of the rich man comes to mind), but that is, at the least to belittle his achievements (in both the relative and the absolute). Furthermore, while it is clear that footballers' or golfers' salaries are grossly disproportionate to more obviously necessary jobs like doctors, policemen etc., the idea that because someone is well paid that they have no right to privacy is absurd, even when some of that money comes from sponsorship and a public image. There are inevitably people who will argue that you can't have it both ways - if you use the press to promote the good you do and to up your standing, you can't expect them not to publicise in turn when things are going wrong.

But imagine, for a moment, if we held each other to similar standards in day to day life. Do we expect normally happy couples to broadcast their marital problems at dinner parties? Should the newly fired talk with equal enthusiasm about their redundancy as they did about the joys of their job? No, and such an implication is absurd. So why do we expect it from so-called celebrities? Most footballers do not foster this ridiculous notion that famous people should automatically be role models, though they may sometimes take advantage of it. So where exactly do we draw the line in financial terms? How much do you have to be paid before you lose your right to privacy?

It is clearly not just a financial consideration. Up until the recession, little attention was paid to bankers and business executives on exorbitant salaries and bonuses. Perhaps it is because they don't get a lot of TV time, whereas the likes of John Terry, Tiger Woods and Vernon Kay obviously gain bargaining power within the market from their increased exposure. But Terry is a footballer. Woods is a golfer. Kay a presenter. To answer the earlier point about the press reporting the bad along with the good, no one is saying the press can't criticise as well as praise (and simply report). But the only thing that's relevant is if Terry doesn't perform on the pitch, Woods on the course, Kay on his shows. As Charlie Brooker rightly pointed out earlier this week, the only people they owe an apology to are those affected by what they did, namely their families and friends.

One of the frequent subjects of ethical and moral discussion is why we as humans have such an obsession with idea of equality and levelling. Communism, in a Marxist sense, is wrongly described as prioritising equality, or at least a Western idea of equality, when, in fact, it is barely a concern. Without problems of ownership or possessions, there is a communal store of anything that might be needed which is open to all. You can take as much or as little as you want or need from the store, the perfect formulation of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". But the issue that historically arises from actual Marxist communes and from general observation of human nature is this idea of keeping up with Joneses. It seems a natural, innate feature that we measure ourselves in comparison to others, and from such measurements, ideas of proportion and fairness arise. But such ideas are not logically or socially necessary - if all my needs are met and all my desires fulfilled, why should I care about how my neighbour is doing?

There are ongoing debates about whether privacy is a right or a privilege, with serious points to be made for both sides. But whichever it is, just as important is the question of who decides, and how, who gets it. The media's justification for their behaviour with regards to Terry and Woods is that they are reporting what people want to hear. If it's true, then the public at large obviously do not deserve to permit or withhold privacy, for reasons of hypocrisy and poor judgement. If it is not true, then the media is simply pandering to a lucrative minority. It is important here to distinguish between something which the public finds interesting and something which is genuinely in the public interest. I would assert that it is nigh on impossible to make a case that the adultery sagas discussed satisfy the latter. Either way, the point stands - just because, through either their own volition or passively, one part of someone's life is within the realm of the media, we cannot conclude that the whole of their life should be.

Top 20 Unknown/Underrated/Unexpected Riffs

Ok, so in an attempt to further lighten (read fluff) this blog up, I have decided to act upon the amazing feeling of empowerment and vitality I experienced this morning when listening to some of my favourite riffs. What follows is my top 20 list of great (mostly guitar based) riffs, but there are qualifiers. I have excluded any bands that are famous for their riffs - no Muse, no Darkness etc.So many of these riffs come from artists who generally do not use them, making their awesomeness even more enjoyable, like finding a fiver in your back pocket.

Some people will consider some of these 'classic' riffs or too well known to be considered, but it really is strange the difference in people's musical awareness who live in the same city, let alone the differences between the UK and the US, for example. You'll see only one artist gets double billing, no prizes for guessing who...

Anyway, I have not ranked them, so they appear here in alphabetical order.

Dammit - Blink 182
Dance The Night Away - Will Young
Deeper Underground - Jamiroquai
Each Time - E17
Everlong - Foo Fighters
Happiness - Orson
Just A Day - Feeder
Life In The Fast Lane - The Eagles
Move On Up - Curtis Mayfield
My Favourite Mistake - Sheryl Crow
My Own Summer (Shove It) - Deftones
Neon - John Mayer
On The Beach - Chris Rea
Run To You - Bryan Adams
Semi-Charmed Life - Third Eye Blind
Slow Dancing In A Burning Room - John Mayer
So Sick - Ne-Yo
Summer Breeze - Isley Brothers
You Can't Stop The Beat - Hairspray
7 Days - Craig David

Enjoy :D

List of the Month: January 2010

OK, so since I didn't make any New Year's Resolutions this year, I'm making one now... 6 and 1/2 weeks late. Oh well...

Every month now, I will be posting my top recommendations of things I have experienced that month, be it articles I've read, songs I've heard, films I've watched, restaurants I've been to etc. You won't necessarily get one of everything each month (although I imagine songs and films will feature pretty heavily), but you'll always get an insight into what I've been doing, which might help make this blog a little more upbeat, lest you all thought I was some sort of life-hating, cynical, miserable bastardly curmudgeon.

Song of the month:

Without a doubt, Comfortable, by John Mayer. Ever since I heard this song, I have not been able to stop listening to it. It is a masterclass in storytelling - simple images powerfully conveying the most heart-rending of emotions. The arrangement is also wonderful, and I can't help but wonder if this is about Jennifer Aniston (although not sure who that makes the new girl, which of John's ex's/currents is that biblical?). In the space of a few days, it leapt to the top of my favourite songs list, and even now, 300 listens later, it still has that same power.

Film of the month:

Hardly a novel opinion, but it has to be Avatar. Snuck in to the running right on the last day of January, saw it with my dad at the IMAX in Nashville, and boy, was it worth the wait. I really don't understand why everyone is slagging off the story - yes, the visuals are incredible (barring a few issues I have with forced perspective and depth of field which apply to all '3d' films), but the story and acting is no slouch. It might be a classic theme of the culture clash and the conversion of the outsider, but that doesn't mean it isn't brilliantly done.

Only two characters felt one dimensional (if you'll forgive the pun), and they were the two main bad guys, which is hardly a unique fault - convincing villains are perhaps the hardest part of writing any story, which is why we so often cling to the great ones (Iago, Saruman, Anakin/Vader, Palpatine, Kathryn Merteuil). But Avatar is a film that has a great deal of rewatchability - the depth of the world both visually and intellectually invites further assessment. The alien culture is hardly a rush-job, but rich, intricate, detailed, or so it appeared on first viewing.

My main gripe would probably be that there is one major missed opportunity in the film, which is the rousing speech right at the end. To my mind, the bar on rousing speeches has been set by Return of the King, with Aragorn's speech at the Black Gate, which makes me want to ride into battle every time I hear it. The Avatar speech just does not live up to this, nor does it get anywhere close. But it's past quickly enough that you can ignore it, and get back to the business of enjoying a thoroughly awesome film.

Well, that's all for the moment. But rest assured, there'll be plenty a'comin at the end of February. And I'll doubtless be amused/pissed off enough about something to blog before then ;-)