Well a new X Factor champion was crowned and now the whole of the UK can finally come off the edge of their seats. My Sunday night will now won't be the same for another 8-9 months - I'm going to miss those incredibly passionate Facebook updates claiming injustice (Fix, fix, fix!), racism (that Simon Cowell don't like us Welsh) or absolute disgust over whose who do or don't stay in.
As you can gather, I'm not a fan. However I did watch it a little bit and try to feign some interest, just to know what everyone was going on about (I was convinced Jedward was some place by Newcastle at first). In fact, I've just started my mini-protest by joining another bandwagon - the bid to make Rage Against The Machine the Christmas Number one single. The campaign on Facebook has been going for weeks and has had some good media coverage (I heard from NME). It has been the strongest of some sister campaigns (there's also a Journey - Don't Stop Believin' for No.1 Facebook group somewhere) and now it is believed that the bookies are sweating. Odds have been slashed from 100-1 to 3-1 after the publicity it has gathered. But the bookies aren't the only one whose sweating - Cowell has been on the defensive, branding the campaign as 'stupid'. So tonight I've just bought my copy of Killing in the Name from iTunes. Take that Cowell and Co! You like that? You want some more? I'll just buy another from a different IP address! Hah!
Before I carry on with the Cowell bashing, I have to take a step back and fully realise what I'm actually doing. I already own Killing in the Name from the RATM Album, so I've effectively just paid 99p for another copy of a song I already have. Why? To hope that I and the 700,000+ others will actually effect the Christmas Number 1 by buying copying of the song, to outsell the X Factor single (really, a Miley Cyrus cover?) which has now been released after the result.
It does seem a bit silly. There are some commentators who say this is a waste of time for many reasons. For one, Cowell probably isn't sweating in reality, because RATM are signed up to Sony and he is likely to benefit from the sales just as much as Geordie Joe. Therefore you probably not taking two fingers up to him financially by buying a copy. Secondly, it isn't a true reflection of Christmas and Killing In The Name is a song from the ninties (although that didn't stop that awful Mad World taking it - yeah that's right, I hated that song). Lastly, surely this campaign can't win? The Christmas number one is truly monopolised these days and it will take more than a bunch of Raged Facebookers to turn the tide when you consider the sheer weight of the X Factor brand.
When it comes down to it, I played along and invested my hard-earned 99p not just for a bit of fun, but it is just one giant experiment to truly test the power of social networking on a annual tradition which has completely changed over the years. With the decline of the CD single and the rise of digital downloads, it meant the floodgates had opened. This means that songs from any era that people buy could be counted towards the music chart. Remember that song by Black Sabbath you always liked but never had? Well now you can own it if it's available online and if a helluva lot of people feel the same way, you can actually influence the weekly chart. But with that, you have to consider the musical zeitgeist of the day on the habits of people's downloading. For example, when Michael Jackson died, it was inevitable that the charts would be flooded with Thriller, Beat It, Bille Jean and so on. If a new Rockband/Guitar Hero game is out of a particular band e.g. The Beatles, it would be no suprise that Hey Jude would sit top of the pile. The campaign of viral messages, Twitter posts and Facebook groups are proven effective communication tools. But could it shape future Christmas number ones?
For me, the Christmas number one stopped being the Christmas number one when the X Factor bullied and assumed the right to it a few years back. Maybe I don't know what the perfect Crimbo song sounds like, but for a start I'd like it to be... well, Christmassy! Stick some bells in there, with a choir or something! But now the whole thing is a sham, with absolute predictability and zero Crimbo content. I mean c'mon, at least Killing in the Name has some cow bell....
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Back from the dead
If I like blogging so much, I guess I would do it more often. These words resonate through my mind most days when I feel like blogging, but I can't be bothered to start writing. So for once I'm using a free window of time to actually get something down and hopefully by reading this it means I actually finished a post! In my absence, they also said that blogging is dead. So let's call this a resurrection.
I do warn you though since my last proper post, I have evolved into something a bit more embittered and well... let's say cranky. Lately I have found even more reason to moan about modern life and everything in it, so I apologise now if this post suddenly mutates into a Max Goldman memoir.
My latest escapade comes from a jolly jaunt in my local neighbourhood, Grangetown CF. When waiting for my car to be fixed, I decided to have a look around the place of my birth, childhood and current residence. I was quite surprised with what I saw, as for the first time I started to see the area as a community of thriving local shops and interesting people instead of the place whee I rest my head at night. After walking up and down Penarth Road (which was coincidentally covered in a radio programme today) I decided to use the facilities at the newly-built library.
As I looked up to the bright, artificial lights of this medicinal-smelling 'sanctuary', I tried to remember with difficulty what libraries used to be like. Children squabbling over five minutes grace on a PC, only to play on some desktop game which requires hefty amounts of excessive clicking; a book checking in-and-out machine which the majority of its users can barely operate ('is this working'?, 'Do I need my card?', 'It's just flashing at me'); whilst works by Kant and Rousseau are deemed 'religious' in a broad array of subjects. But what really wrestles with my memories - for the reason I was wrestling with my book - is the fact that libraries are just not quiet anymore.
If I was 10 years old again, this observation would weigh like a feather on my mind. But now this revelation is earth shattering to me, like rocking an age-old institution. No-one would dream of talking at anything above a whisper. To do so would incur the wrath of the frighteningly efficient and stern-looking librarian, whose silence dictated the law of the library. And for those who were so foolish to speak over a certain decibel level, the librarian would simply become a man of action - brandishing his own justice to preserve the peace of his palace. Now whilst I get to grips with George Monbiot's latest book, I get the full details of librarian's ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, whilst her colleague boasts with enthusiasm (and volume) about the time off he's about to get. Where did it all go wrong? Why have libraries descended into this?
Appeal. Coffee shops, fancy computers, creches - the essential things that 21st century people 'want' or 'need'. The desperate attempts to give the library a more universal appeal. But it fails to consider the very things that libraries should stand for - being able to enjoy a good book in peace and tranquility. In the 21st century hustle and bustle, many facets of society have been busied, modernised, technologicalised and made to keep up the pace with our 24/7 lifestyle.
But the humble library, the embodiment of a social sanctuary outside the realms of pub and home, should remain the place that stays at the slow of a crawl. And quiet too.
I do warn you though since my last proper post, I have evolved into something a bit more embittered and well... let's say cranky. Lately I have found even more reason to moan about modern life and everything in it, so I apologise now if this post suddenly mutates into a Max Goldman memoir.
My latest escapade comes from a jolly jaunt in my local neighbourhood, Grangetown CF. When waiting for my car to be fixed, I decided to have a look around the place of my birth, childhood and current residence. I was quite surprised with what I saw, as for the first time I started to see the area as a community of thriving local shops and interesting people instead of the place whee I rest my head at night. After walking up and down Penarth Road (which was coincidentally covered in a radio programme today) I decided to use the facilities at the newly-built library.
As I looked up to the bright, artificial lights of this medicinal-smelling 'sanctuary', I tried to remember with difficulty what libraries used to be like. Children squabbling over five minutes grace on a PC, only to play on some desktop game which requires hefty amounts of excessive clicking; a book checking in-and-out machine which the majority of its users can barely operate ('is this working'?, 'Do I need my card?', 'It's just flashing at me'); whilst works by Kant and Rousseau are deemed 'religious' in a broad array of subjects. But what really wrestles with my memories - for the reason I was wrestling with my book - is the fact that libraries are just not quiet anymore.
If I was 10 years old again, this observation would weigh like a feather on my mind. But now this revelation is earth shattering to me, like rocking an age-old institution. No-one would dream of talking at anything above a whisper. To do so would incur the wrath of the frighteningly efficient and stern-looking librarian, whose silence dictated the law of the library. And for those who were so foolish to speak over a certain decibel level, the librarian would simply become a man of action - brandishing his own justice to preserve the peace of his palace. Now whilst I get to grips with George Monbiot's latest book, I get the full details of librarian's ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, whilst her colleague boasts with enthusiasm (and volume) about the time off he's about to get. Where did it all go wrong? Why have libraries descended into this?
Appeal. Coffee shops, fancy computers, creches - the essential things that 21st century people 'want' or 'need'. The desperate attempts to give the library a more universal appeal. But it fails to consider the very things that libraries should stand for - being able to enjoy a good book in peace and tranquility. In the 21st century hustle and bustle, many facets of society have been busied, modernised, technologicalised and made to keep up the pace with our 24/7 lifestyle.
But the humble library, the embodiment of a social sanctuary outside the realms of pub and home, should remain the place that stays at the slow of a crawl. And quiet too.
Just for your information
With only a few weeks to go for the local elections, you know at some time my enthusiasm for democracy will soon be displayed in some shape or form. Good friends of mine often despair at my customary rallying cry on forums, blogs, social networking sites for everyone to use their vote. I've recently been trying to find new political websites which can compile information from everywhere in the political arena. Sloth is terrible habit to develop, but is aided greatly by the web.
It was then I stumbled upon politicshome, a great beta site powered with ingenious Web 2.0 technology which pulls everything political in one place. Complete with up-to-date opinion polls, politico blog updates and carefully selected articles and videos from the daily press, this site is pure Eden for any political researcher (no pun intended). You might say it is a 'bit busy' from looking at it, especially as it can run rather slowly on low spec PCs (like mine). This said however, it is a marvel to think that all the information of the day in the sphere of politics pretty much sits on that page. It is like the Big Daddy of all pizzas - with all your favourite toppings put on one crispy base to enjoy in one sitting. Yummy.
But as I drool at the prospect of this mighty meat feast of current events and happenings, something doesn't feel right. I feel overindulged - rather unworthy of such news decadence. And then it hits me - as it hits me every time I search Wikipedia - do I have too much knowledge at my fingertips? At an age where the Internet can reveal any lost detail or forgotten fact, such as the name of that drummer in some obscure 80's band, or who was the last player to miss a penalty in a FA Cup Final, we can revel in such technology to put our minds at rest and solve any disputes which are raised over a pint or two at the booozer. After all we are only human.
What worries me though is if that in the pursuit for knowledge, does curiosity really kill the cat? Do we have too much information on our beckoned call? And is the quality of the information on sites like Wikipedia something we should be basing our core understanding of certain subjects?
In the typical dystopian society born out of sci-fi novels the lack of information is usually the tried and tested method of enslaving and stupifying the masses, but can too much free-flowing information only enslave and harm the very people that contribute towards it?
My paranoia over the way we pass on these tit-bits of information I guess is born from a video game. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty has a fantastically deep, philosophically littered storyline I still thoroughly enjoy playing - but I'm sure it is a game I will never fully understand (thank God I seem to be in the majority here!).
To sum up what is a very complex storyline, a particular scene states how the Patriots (believed to be a mysterious group which are the true rulers of the world behind the puppet masters in public office) sort and filter through the human garbage of information that we produce to ensure that society remains intact. In this short exchange of words, 'The Colonel' and Rose, representations of this seemingly 'inhuman' group, are telling the protagonist Jack/Raiden how the human race is not fit to govern itself:
OK OK, if I'm talking about a dystopian novel dialogue, that would probably fit the bill quite nicely; it would probably look right at home in 1984 or Brave New World. And yes, this is taken straight out of a plot line which is as incredibly Japanese as a microphone in a Downtown Tokyo bar. But those words still resonate a harsh reality of whether there is too much of an opportunity for freedom of speech on the Internet.
Take for example, the ever-growing popular and controversial viral docu-film, Zeitgeist; a damning conspiracy theory of how the world's banking corporations are working towards a Novus Ordo Mundi or One World Government by linking religion, 9/11 and the US Federal Reserve. Pretty glass-shattering stuff, which you really have to watch with an open mind. Some interesting points, but for me the jury is still out.
Anyway - a subject which fits nicely with the Metal Gear storyline above - this film has gathered quite a following online, despite hitting home the message that 9/11 was an inside job and that religion is purely a construction by 'biblical' politicians to ensure hegemonic status in society. Ideas which are met with much resistance in any social sphere. And although these ideas would face very little credibility or support in the halls of US democracy, they have a powerful base online to inform and influence.
I don't mean to discredit Zeitgeist in anyway, especially as it claims to have been produced with extensive, accurate research. With more people fuelling their theories and posting them online, we could celebrate such a diversity of free thought. But offshoots from possibly credible theories drift nearer to fantasy. The fact that some of these theories can be devised on the basis of little truth or the assumed truth from the Wikipedia does lead to a harrowing conclusion - the fact that if an unfounded idea is popular enough, it has the potential to rock society to the core. Its like spreading rumours on a larger scale - and we all know that's how fires start.
But if a "single man does have the potential to ruin the world" and that "digital communication has given more power to the individual", maybe as a species we think about smartening up a bit. And to do that, maybe when it comes to big league stuff we should give 'Wikiing' a miss from time to time.
It was then I stumbled upon politicshome, a great beta site powered with ingenious Web 2.0 technology which pulls everything political in one place. Complete with up-to-date opinion polls, politico blog updates and carefully selected articles and videos from the daily press, this site is pure Eden for any political researcher (no pun intended). You might say it is a 'bit busy' from looking at it, especially as it can run rather slowly on low spec PCs (like mine). This said however, it is a marvel to think that all the information of the day in the sphere of politics pretty much sits on that page. It is like the Big Daddy of all pizzas - with all your favourite toppings put on one crispy base to enjoy in one sitting. Yummy.
But as I drool at the prospect of this mighty meat feast of current events and happenings, something doesn't feel right. I feel overindulged - rather unworthy of such news decadence. And then it hits me - as it hits me every time I search Wikipedia - do I have too much knowledge at my fingertips? At an age where the Internet can reveal any lost detail or forgotten fact, such as the name of that drummer in some obscure 80's band, or who was the last player to miss a penalty in a FA Cup Final, we can revel in such technology to put our minds at rest and solve any disputes which are raised over a pint or two at the booozer. After all we are only human.
What worries me though is if that in the pursuit for knowledge, does curiosity really kill the cat? Do we have too much information on our beckoned call? And is the quality of the information on sites like Wikipedia something we should be basing our core understanding of certain subjects?
In the typical dystopian society born out of sci-fi novels the lack of information is usually the tried and tested method of enslaving and stupifying the masses, but can too much free-flowing information only enslave and harm the very people that contribute towards it?
My paranoia over the way we pass on these tit-bits of information I guess is born from a video game. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty has a fantastically deep, philosophically littered storyline I still thoroughly enjoy playing - but I'm sure it is a game I will never fully understand (thank God I seem to be in the majority here!).
To sum up what is a very complex storyline, a particular scene states how the Patriots (believed to be a mysterious group which are the true rulers of the world behind the puppet masters in public office) sort and filter through the human garbage of information that we produce to ensure that society remains intact. In this short exchange of words, 'The Colonel' and Rose, representations of this seemingly 'inhuman' group, are telling the protagonist Jack/Raiden how the human race is not fit to govern itself:
| Colonel: | Ironic that although "self" is something that you yourself fashioned, |
| every time something goes wrong, you turn around and place the blame on something else. | |
| Rose: | It's not my fault. It's not your fault. |
| Colonel: | In denial, you simply resort to looking for another, |
| more convenient "truth" in order to make yourself feel better. | |
| Rose: | ...leaving behind in an instant the so-called "truth" you once embraced. |
| Colonel: | Should someone like that be able to decide what is "truth"? |
| Rose: | Should someone like you even have the right to decide? |
| Colonel: | You've done nothing but abuse your freedom. |
| Rose: | You don't deserve to be free! |
| Colonel: | We're not the ones smothering the world. You are. |
| Rose: | The individual is supposed to be weak. But far from powerless -- |
| -- a single person has the potential to ruin the world. | |
| Colonel: | And the age of digitized communication has given even more power to the individual. |
| Too much power for an immature species. |
OK OK, if I'm talking about a dystopian novel dialogue, that would probably fit the bill quite nicely; it would probably look right at home in 1984 or Brave New World. And yes, this is taken straight out of a plot line which is as incredibly Japanese as a microphone in a Downtown Tokyo bar. But those words still resonate a harsh reality of whether there is too much of an opportunity for freedom of speech on the Internet.
Take for example, the ever-growing popular and controversial viral docu-film, Zeitgeist; a damning conspiracy theory of how the world's banking corporations are working towards a Novus Ordo Mundi or One World Government by linking religion, 9/11 and the US Federal Reserve. Pretty glass-shattering stuff, which you really have to watch with an open mind. Some interesting points, but for me the jury is still out.
Anyway - a subject which fits nicely with the Metal Gear storyline above - this film has gathered quite a following online, despite hitting home the message that 9/11 was an inside job and that religion is purely a construction by 'biblical' politicians to ensure hegemonic status in society. Ideas which are met with much resistance in any social sphere. And although these ideas would face very little credibility or support in the halls of US democracy, they have a powerful base online to inform and influence.
I don't mean to discredit Zeitgeist in anyway, especially as it claims to have been produced with extensive, accurate research. With more people fuelling their theories and posting them online, we could celebrate such a diversity of free thought. But offshoots from possibly credible theories drift nearer to fantasy. The fact that some of these theories can be devised on the basis of little truth or the assumed truth from the Wikipedia does lead to a harrowing conclusion - the fact that if an unfounded idea is popular enough, it has the potential to rock society to the core. Its like spreading rumours on a larger scale - and we all know that's how fires start.
But if a "single man does have the potential to ruin the world" and that "digital communication has given more power to the individual", maybe as a species we think about smartening up a bit. And to do that, maybe when it comes to big league stuff we should give 'Wikiing' a miss from time to time.
2007 - A year in review
Is it really New Years already? The festive season has crept up so quickly this year, it only feels like yesterday that I was writing about the start to my Annus Horribilus - where I my organisation was seemingly inept. The time just moves way too quickly these days!
But to be fair, the awful start to the year did not carry further into the following months and I was lucky to have a fairly good year overall. Although I spent all year moaning how I couldn't get a job, I embarked on some volunteer work at Sustainable Wales in May and in the past few weeks, I have been offered a full time position at the organisation. I look forward to going back in January to take on an exciting role. Our annual holiday this year was to Mexico, which was simply fantastic. I have seen some brilliant gigs this year, inclduing the Foos, Stereophonics and the Manics who never disappoint. TTFE has had a great year too - be it singing Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau on St. Davids Day or dressing up in Hawaiian outfits for the 100th recorded game, the organisation has been pretty eventful this year. The TTFE Xmas party was also good fun, and my TTFE history was well-received too.
Here on One Man, I have also tried to keep writing consistently over the year. Apart from November and December, I thought I was pretty good at it! I have written about the horrors and sequential collapse of ITV Play, the Welsh smoking ban in April, the meteoric rise of 5-a-side football in society and even the value of what's free over the past year. I promise more of the same next year!
But to be fair, the awful start to the year did not carry further into the following months and I was lucky to have a fairly good year overall. Although I spent all year moaning how I couldn't get a job, I embarked on some volunteer work at Sustainable Wales in May and in the past few weeks, I have been offered a full time position at the organisation. I look forward to going back in January to take on an exciting role. Our annual holiday this year was to Mexico, which was simply fantastic. I have seen some brilliant gigs this year, inclduing the Foos, Stereophonics and the Manics who never disappoint. TTFE has had a great year too - be it singing Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau on St. Davids Day or dressing up in Hawaiian outfits for the 100th recorded game, the organisation has been pretty eventful this year. The TTFE Xmas party was also good fun, and my TTFE history was well-received too.
Here on One Man, I have also tried to keep writing consistently over the year. Apart from November and December, I thought I was pretty good at it! I have written about the horrors and sequential collapse of ITV Play, the Welsh smoking ban in April, the meteoric rise of 5-a-side football in society and even the value of what's free over the past year. I promise more of the same next year!
Beating the Honesty Box : I just can't do it
It was a long time coming but when it came the idea still hit me for six. With Prince giving away his latest offering via a Sunday newspaper tabloid and the Charlatans new album soon to be available as a free download from the XFM website, Radiohead’s In Rainbows album shouldn’t be too much of a shock in comparison. The album is now available for free from their newly branded website. However, this album isn’t just free. In contrast it is you- the loyal fan, the musical connoisseur, the first time listener – who has a choice of what to pay.
Now we are faced with a moral dilemma. For the first time, we hold the fate of the band in our hands through our own philanthropy. The ‘honesty box’ on the Radiohead website allows anyone to place any amount they wish, how much they think the band deserve, how much they can afford, all in one act of swift judgment. The thing is if something is free and we are told it is free, then we have no problems in accepting it’s free. If a CD costs a tenner in the shops we often moan and grumble, but we know that certain factors have made it that price; such as CD production, the record company’s cut, the band’s cut and so on. But what they are asking us to do is to consider all that and make us decide what we deem a fair price. It’s not free; but it is if you want it to be, or if your conscience would let it be. That’s the conundrum and the internal struggle.
I haven’t tried the site out yet but already I am thinking of a price I could offer. Why can’t I just get it free I hear you ask? It’s the damn box – the opportunity of a free download is always irresistibly tempting to me, but I just can’t put three noughts in those boxes. It just doesn’t seem right. That’s the genius of it though isn’t it; when faced with the band you appreciate directly through their own domain, you just can’t rob them blind. If you download illegally through a third party I guess you could feel rather better about yourself. Maybe there are a lot of people like me out there; too gutless to say to the band that they’re stealing your music from right under your nose. It’s like trying to take the whole chocolate cake from the table before dinner when your mother isn’t looking; then to your shock and amazement, your mother returns to offer the whole cake to you willingly. We, the confused children, can only take a small slice or even nothing at all, because we think something is afoot; or we know that mother is gonna be pissed if we now decide to take the whole cake. If you have the balls to take the whole thing in her face before eating your roast dinner, I salute you.
This isn’t to say that Radiohead will shop anyone who is downloading for free. This isn’t what they want to do. To be honest though, I don’t know what they plan to do by doing this. Are they making a statement about the music industry, about how it has forgotten its real artistic roots for the sake of a quick buck? Are they trying to revolutionise the way in which we listen to our music, by further manipulating the internet and the download trend? Is Thom Yorke going off his rocker even more than usual? Probably not; my hunch is that with frontman Yorke, being as intelligent as he is, there must something we are missing here. Never one to shy away from making a bold statement, I’ve a feeling he knows exactly what he is doing with this box. I wouldn’t be surprised if this album, fully realised by the band before hand, was not up to scratch with OK Computer, Kid A or The Bends; and was subsequently a B-Side album in an A-side album guise to be given away in a sensational, traditional breaking manner. The critics have already said this album possesses no Street Spirit, no Paranoid Android, no Creep, no No Surprises. If this is the case, Yorke is conducting a very interesting social experiment; one in which I am deeply fascinated to hear about.
Is the intention to see how honest we are? A test of moral fibre if you will? Are we being prompted to think about how we conduct ourselves in obtaining our music? Surely too moralistic! I could choose to join the cynics and ask ‘is he being just plain selfish’? Going back to the whole ‘in it to stop illegal downloads and possibly make more money’ argument, touched upon briefly earlier in the child and cake scenario, if more downloads were carried out in this way, the illegal downloads would soon decrease as they would just not be needed. Bands themselves would soon be the face of the downloads, not download sites. This way, the band gets something out of it; well mainly from those who fall victim to their consciences. Oh and of course from those who are easily swayed into buying a CD and DVD twin pack made available next year for a massive £40 or so. That too.
But maybe it isn’t about tackling the problem of illegal downloading by offering an honesty box. Please excuse the egoism here, but as much as I like to think there are lots of people out there just like me, there aren’t. I would imagine that a fairly large amount of people will end up entering zilch, nada, dim byd in the In Rainbows online payment box. The question is: why pay more, when you don’t have to? That cheeky Del Boy attitude is infectious here in the UK and is something we shouldn’t necessarily be ashamed of, where a nagging, silent morality sometimes takes a back seat to make way for the financial nous. Of course, we do this in small doses to avoid the risk of becoming too obsessed with making money at whatever cost, like our friends across the Atlantic pond. For many, the cost dodging is justified in a talentless pool of mediocre music. Many people are sick of paying well over the odds for a weakly made CD these days, where albums have only one or two strong tracks.
So for those who beat the honesty box, I salute you, just like the child who took the whole cake. But remember one thing – nothing in life is free, just like the 45p album card handling fee upon placing the three zeros will clearly demonstrate.
Now we are faced with a moral dilemma. For the first time, we hold the fate of the band in our hands through our own philanthropy. The ‘honesty box’ on the Radiohead website allows anyone to place any amount they wish, how much they think the band deserve, how much they can afford, all in one act of swift judgment. The thing is if something is free and we are told it is free, then we have no problems in accepting it’s free. If a CD costs a tenner in the shops we often moan and grumble, but we know that certain factors have made it that price; such as CD production, the record company’s cut, the band’s cut and so on. But what they are asking us to do is to consider all that and make us decide what we deem a fair price. It’s not free; but it is if you want it to be, or if your conscience would let it be. That’s the conundrum and the internal struggle.
I haven’t tried the site out yet but already I am thinking of a price I could offer. Why can’t I just get it free I hear you ask? It’s the damn box – the opportunity of a free download is always irresistibly tempting to me, but I just can’t put three noughts in those boxes. It just doesn’t seem right. That’s the genius of it though isn’t it; when faced with the band you appreciate directly through their own domain, you just can’t rob them blind. If you download illegally through a third party I guess you could feel rather better about yourself. Maybe there are a lot of people like me out there; too gutless to say to the band that they’re stealing your music from right under your nose. It’s like trying to take the whole chocolate cake from the table before dinner when your mother isn’t looking; then to your shock and amazement, your mother returns to offer the whole cake to you willingly. We, the confused children, can only take a small slice or even nothing at all, because we think something is afoot; or we know that mother is gonna be pissed if we now decide to take the whole cake. If you have the balls to take the whole thing in her face before eating your roast dinner, I salute you.
This isn’t to say that Radiohead will shop anyone who is downloading for free. This isn’t what they want to do. To be honest though, I don’t know what they plan to do by doing this. Are they making a statement about the music industry, about how it has forgotten its real artistic roots for the sake of a quick buck? Are they trying to revolutionise the way in which we listen to our music, by further manipulating the internet and the download trend? Is Thom Yorke going off his rocker even more than usual? Probably not; my hunch is that with frontman Yorke, being as intelligent as he is, there must something we are missing here. Never one to shy away from making a bold statement, I’ve a feeling he knows exactly what he is doing with this box. I wouldn’t be surprised if this album, fully realised by the band before hand, was not up to scratch with OK Computer, Kid A or The Bends; and was subsequently a B-Side album in an A-side album guise to be given away in a sensational, traditional breaking manner. The critics have already said this album possesses no Street Spirit, no Paranoid Android, no Creep, no No Surprises. If this is the case, Yorke is conducting a very interesting social experiment; one in which I am deeply fascinated to hear about.
Is the intention to see how honest we are? A test of moral fibre if you will? Are we being prompted to think about how we conduct ourselves in obtaining our music? Surely too moralistic! I could choose to join the cynics and ask ‘is he being just plain selfish’? Going back to the whole ‘in it to stop illegal downloads and possibly make more money’ argument, touched upon briefly earlier in the child and cake scenario, if more downloads were carried out in this way, the illegal downloads would soon decrease as they would just not be needed. Bands themselves would soon be the face of the downloads, not download sites. This way, the band gets something out of it; well mainly from those who fall victim to their consciences. Oh and of course from those who are easily swayed into buying a CD and DVD twin pack made available next year for a massive £40 or so. That too.
But maybe it isn’t about tackling the problem of illegal downloading by offering an honesty box. Please excuse the egoism here, but as much as I like to think there are lots of people out there just like me, there aren’t. I would imagine that a fairly large amount of people will end up entering zilch, nada, dim byd in the In Rainbows online payment box. The question is: why pay more, when you don’t have to? That cheeky Del Boy attitude is infectious here in the UK and is something we shouldn’t necessarily be ashamed of, where a nagging, silent morality sometimes takes a back seat to make way for the financial nous. Of course, we do this in small doses to avoid the risk of becoming too obsessed with making money at whatever cost, like our friends across the Atlantic pond. For many, the cost dodging is justified in a talentless pool of mediocre music. Many people are sick of paying well over the odds for a weakly made CD these days, where albums have only one or two strong tracks.
So for those who beat the honesty box, I salute you, just like the child who took the whole cake. But remember one thing – nothing in life is free, just like the 45p album card handling fee upon placing the three zeros will clearly demonstrate.
October 1st
I could have named this post after anything remotely interesting. You all know how much I love my witty, often alliteration ridden titles. Today however I have decided to dedicate the day to the very date which it is commonly defined - October the first.
Today has been important on so many levels in the realm of current events, as newsrooms had a field day with all of these significant happenings. Today, we observed a severe hike in fuel prices, with the price of diesel topping and overtaking the pound mark. No surprise that the Haulers United will soon rise again and convoy back down the M4. Today, the Sustainable Development Commission released their report into the Severn Barrage proposal - a monumental environment 'see-saw saga' which is begging for a swift and definite solution. It is clear that this report will have a massive effect on which way this project is going to proceed, with both the government and pressure groups in locked horns over what to do. Today, the minimum legal age that one can purchase tobacco in Great Britain has become 18 - meaning that all those nicotine-addicted 16 year olds should feel cheated towards what is clearly an unsympathetic ruling, but at the same time, they should feel appreciative at the prospect of avoiding the Big C many years down the line.
Besides those events, there's been a few changes and new beginnings closer to home. Today I started my second work placement in Porthcawl, working for Sustainable Wales. Today, I looked outside my bedroom window and realised that the torrid and harsh rainfall against a darkened morning sky ended any hope of a much needed Indian Summer. Today, after work, I drove home from the seafront with the winter blues slowly coming on, despite the best attempts of Katrina and the Waves on the radio to keep me thinking of sunny Mexico only a few weeks ago. Today, I knew for the first time that summer had finally disappeared and Christmas (or should I say seasonal?) lights will soon be glowing in the hallway.
Today, I just feel different. I think I know why too. Today was also the first taste of university lectures for many newly enrolled students across the nation. Of course, the younger ones had gone back to school a month ago. The date however, isn't important. The point is - whether it is September or October in which the younger generation begin their studies, it's clear that to them the scholastic year is the calendar which just feels the most natural. January to December maybe the default year we all reflect upon and use clearly for establishing one numbered year from the other, but just like the awkward and disjointed football season runs from August to May, it feels right to treat each scholastic year the real one to plan the 'year' by. In September and October, I make plans for the next twelve months if it is possible; I certainly do not plan my year in January - and if I do, it is only the crappy New Year Resolution which I barely maintain until Valentine's Day. Even the tax year runs across two numbered years - from April to March - which is the most important timetabled record you can think of when it comes to earning your bread. So I ask - does anyone actually think of a year, as a year?
Well I don't. Therefore it makes complete sense that I decree this day, October 1st, the very first day of the year. Which means a new start and all that - quite appropriate really, considering what this day has served to represent for many students, environmentalists, smokers, SAD sufferers and lorry drivers. I say with complete and utter confidence; this day will be the first day of the rest of your life. Or failing that, can I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy new year?
Today has been important on so many levels in the realm of current events, as newsrooms had a field day with all of these significant happenings. Today, we observed a severe hike in fuel prices, with the price of diesel topping and overtaking the pound mark. No surprise that the Haulers United will soon rise again and convoy back down the M4. Today, the Sustainable Development Commission released their report into the Severn Barrage proposal - a monumental environment 'see-saw saga' which is begging for a swift and definite solution. It is clear that this report will have a massive effect on which way this project is going to proceed, with both the government and pressure groups in locked horns over what to do. Today, the minimum legal age that one can purchase tobacco in Great Britain has become 18 - meaning that all those nicotine-addicted 16 year olds should feel cheated towards what is clearly an unsympathetic ruling, but at the same time, they should feel appreciative at the prospect of avoiding the Big C many years down the line.
Besides those events, there's been a few changes and new beginnings closer to home. Today I started my second work placement in Porthcawl, working for Sustainable Wales. Today, I looked outside my bedroom window and realised that the torrid and harsh rainfall against a darkened morning sky ended any hope of a much needed Indian Summer. Today, after work, I drove home from the seafront with the winter blues slowly coming on, despite the best attempts of Katrina and the Waves on the radio to keep me thinking of sunny Mexico only a few weeks ago. Today, I knew for the first time that summer had finally disappeared and Christmas (or should I say seasonal?) lights will soon be glowing in the hallway.
Today, I just feel different. I think I know why too. Today was also the first taste of university lectures for many newly enrolled students across the nation. Of course, the younger ones had gone back to school a month ago. The date however, isn't important. The point is - whether it is September or October in which the younger generation begin their studies, it's clear that to them the scholastic year is the calendar which just feels the most natural. January to December maybe the default year we all reflect upon and use clearly for establishing one numbered year from the other, but just like the awkward and disjointed football season runs from August to May, it feels right to treat each scholastic year the real one to plan the 'year' by. In September and October, I make plans for the next twelve months if it is possible; I certainly do not plan my year in January - and if I do, it is only the crappy New Year Resolution which I barely maintain until Valentine's Day. Even the tax year runs across two numbered years - from April to March - which is the most important timetabled record you can think of when it comes to earning your bread. So I ask - does anyone actually think of a year, as a year?
Well I don't. Therefore it makes complete sense that I decree this day, October 1st, the very first day of the year. Which means a new start and all that - quite appropriate really, considering what this day has served to represent for many students, environmentalists, smokers, SAD sufferers and lorry drivers. I say with complete and utter confidence; this day will be the first day of the rest of your life. Or failing that, can I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy new year?
