Rock and Beyond

Like any field in society, it is subject to analysis, later on, conclusions from researches can actually reveal something about society as a whole. I have, due to my education, an important interest towards music. Most of the people do say that they like music, I know people who really do know a lot, and most have a restricted knowledge of it. I will shortly explain through two life examples the reaction coming from people who have a restricted knowledge. But first of all, I need to legitimize myself so you understand my perspective on the subject. As a player ( clarinet ) I have learned the western way to analyse a piece of music, I also had also amounted a lot of information on the history of this art through school, my parents, readings and DVD's.

I will use some premises throughout this text, the first one is that the creation of music, it's interpretation and distribution are the results of different forces in society. I don't think that someone will disagree that for the manufacturers of music, their history will account for their taste and therefore for the music they'll create. Meaningful changes in music are therefore the results of meaningful changes within society. That is why afterwards, in the field of history, music periods often possess the same name as societies period. I would even propose that music periods account in better details, like other subjects in the history of art ( e.g. literature ). As an example, the romantic period show the the dream of a liberated society by the enlightenment, and the naturalist period show the result of an industrializing society which doesn't represent the dreams of the romantics.
I have two flatmates, one is South-African, Michael, the other is English, Andrew.
Both admits a restricted taste and knowledge of music. Michael is open to some styles of music, mostly southern music of the globe and some R'n B. Andrew on the other hand, restricts himself to songs which make the charts. Both represents different sides of a global society. Michael, not being directed by society's mass choice ( a choice which important theories show that it is mainly created by the important music corporations), is open to any kind of music which he will come across. On another point, through my discussions with him, his discovery of music is an interesting point for me who is already deeply embedded by my interactions in the field. Andrew's perspective otherwise is just a reference towards something I don't want to be associate with, I try to reject as much as possible prejudices when trying new music. I'm not sure though what are my exact criteria set of taste created by my environment, but I can explain what I look for.

I like Rock and Roll, but my definition, like most people, is wide. I will use here a short dialogues from the documentary “The Last Waltz” by Martin Scorsese. It is between Martin Scorsese and Levon Helm, the drummer of the band calld “ The Band”:
“ Levon Helm – Near Memphis, cotton country, rice country, the most interesting thing is probably the music.
Martin Scorsese – Who comes from around there ?
Levon Helm – Carl Perkins, Muddy Waters the king of country music, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley. That's kind of the middle of the country back there. So bluegrass or country music, if it comes down to that area and if it mixes there with rhythm and if it dances, then you've got a combination of all those different kinds of music. Country, bluegrass, blues music, show music. The melting pot.
Martin Scorsese – And what's it called ?
Levon Helm – Rock and Roll”
A metling pot, and that is what I like in music. Such melting pots can be found around the world but having grown up in a European country, my influences were mainly western. I like this idea of amalgam of musics and cultures. It is an aspect in world cultures which show the results of this aspiration for a global world where region cultures keep some aspect of their identity to produce something new. It unites messages and open doors to other cultures.

All this genres of music, I like to distinct them in two large categories. The first one is the one that unite music from the southern hemisphere with the northern. First of all my examples, I would like to name Charlie Parker and his third way, when he added string playing in a classical way with his jazz solo. The Clash imports of reggae music into punk rock is an example that everybody knows. It can also be observed in the souther countries. Psychedelic music during the 70's influenced great local bands from Sub-Saharan countries. There are also a lot of available covers of well-known song in South-American style. Manu Chao in this matter is also a real global artist. My last example, which I discovered last year and quite enjoy is Rachid Taha, an Algerian artist playing in France and mixes every kind of music he encountered closely.

The second category is the music which mixes the east and the west. Gogol Bordello is the most famous recent example I can think of, playing East European Folk music and punk. Blonde Redhead is another band which incorporates the Chinese tonality of its singer with its contemporary dreamy sounds. Having lived in Thailand, I listened to the music there, but I had a problem with the immobility of Thai culture, which is also observable in its music. To compare it with another country which has more diverse cultures but keep an identity, it's been a while that I listened to Japanese radios. In every style, whether it is jazz, rock or hip-hop, they have some definite real global quality bands: PE'Z, MINMI, Nujabe, Sing02 are just a few of them. It is also observable, for obvious reasons, that the Chinese scene in China has not got what I look for.

So here are some of my preferences in music. I have to state that I do listen to classics also, it is important to understand where different cultures come from. But I do believe that as good songs they can be, they can incarnate exactly what I look for in my music. I'm lost in my thoughts now and I don't know what I wanted to say. Music represents Society in lot of ways. People appreciate the art of the their milieu, and listen to whatever person they consider superior in their milieu. Knowledge of it might free people, but there is a long way to gon though some musics can maybe show the way.
There. I hope I saved my self.

Remembrance day is coming slowly but surely. And for my international readers, I'll explain to youwhat gave it away. Everybody here in England is wearing a red fake puppy flower on their coat. It's been a really long time that the poppy has been a symbol of war and its consequences, but it is after a canadian officer's poem thatn their red poppy took its meaning:



In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

- John McCrae

But I am not after the poem. I am after people wearing this plastic red poppy flower. This came after a few discussions with fellow students who were either proudly wearing it,or proudly defending the charity it represents. I started as my usual devil's advocate role to point out all the effects of this charity but I got badly attacked on my arguments and it pushed me to the point where I do now believe my talk ( I might later go on my self-corruption of the mind).
To state my argument simply, if you were a red poppy, you support the war. Obviously, stated like that,people get offended and react on the defensive. "Wouldn't you support someone who got mugged?" Was the first
rgument I had to put away. I hope that you are a smart reader and I don't need to go too much in details to state how ridiculous it is. An officer is not payed to get mugged, he is pay to mug people. "But wouldn't you support a fireman who got badly burn". Well of course I would think about it. But a fireman is not payed to kill anything but fire and bees (and then again, bees will soon be an endangered species). An officer is payed to got to war, and I don't approve of most wars.
Another argument is that a soldier doesn't make the choice to go to war, he is ordered to. I even heard " the don't know they might need help afterward". But ignorance is no excuse. Ignorance is rarely an excuse, especially for someone who enlisted to the army, I would consider him an ignorant doubled by stupidity. If the army accept such unaware soldiers, why would I support the charity of the ex-army members. But talking sincerely and not taking into account the different remarks I received, noone is stupid enough to enlist to the army without knowing they have chances to come back impaired by their experience. If they are not prepared to suffer the consequence of their choice, why did they enlist?
I have been told that I'm ignoring the consequences of war by not buying a red puppy. I'm not buying one because I am aware of the consequences and I don't want to support the consequences of it because I don't want to support the origin of these consequences. The red puppy for remembrance day started as the soldiers fallen in world war one. I remember them for being the victims of one the most horrible war in history. But I'm not going to be the one who will backup the soldier who says "To you from failing hands we throw/The torch; be yours to hold it high." I don't want soldiers to go to war and I don't want them to be back hailed like heroes. Most of them are not. And the charity support the living "heroes" because we, as a society, haven't considered all the effects of war. The government, representative of the people, should be there for them. I don't know what position people put themselves in with this red puppy. They directly help soldiers who went to commit themselves to horrible actions, and blame at the same their representatives who ordered the horrible actions. They find the power to honour the soldiers, but have no will to criticize with as much a high profile war.
"Wars will always exist" was the second argument given to me by the guy who told me I was ignoring the consequences of war and being inactive. Again, are you smart enough to see how he brought up an argument against real inaction ? Real inaction is following the public with this charity that has the highest profile in U.-K. Real inaction is not willing to change humanity for the best. We can fight war. War doesn't have to be a constant in history. Supporting the consequences of war, making it the norm in our society, is showing a deep lack of will to fight this foe of humanity.

I made my point as clear as I could, I hope it did strike someone. This red puppy is a real narcotic. It gives everybody a sense of belonging, a sense of helping the one in need, a sense of pride to have people fighting for us, a sense of pity for those who are wounded. But it doesn't make us dream for a day where we wouldn't need any red poppy. It doesn't make us think that if we change the ground this poppies grow on, they might be white someday. By the way, white puppy flowers are extinct here in England - no one will support peace anymore. So I'll burn a red puppy, in remembrance of the people who fought against war.

Dispute over the future of DNAs' information

Another dinner sparkled a dispute where I've been told I was a theorist of conspiracies. Since we are all breathing together, we are all conspirasists, as for building theories, I pity the pragmatists.

The subject was DNA and its relevance to parents disrepancy. An academical paper on parents disrepancy shown that maybe one in four children are not the biological offspring of their parents. Of course, since most countries have voted a protection over DNAs informations, the paper did state that it was hard to come up with a correct statistical analysis.

The data were collected from different sources. The most important source for parental disrepancy is actually hospitals. To calculate the compatibility between donors and receivers, DNA decoding is done daily nowadays. And that's where hospitals come across personal informations that are hard to communicate to families. The ethical dilemmas behind this are not of my concern (though I have of course an opinion about it).

My problem was that a statistic around parental disrepancy was on the table. The Human Genome Project and all the statistical informations of our DNAs are out there, and though our personnal informations are not given to anyone, anonymous results are.
Where am I going ?

Well problems will arise behind the facts given behind these statistics. Just like Einstein didn't want bombs to be build, I'm sure that scientists still don't balance out the consequences of their study. Balancing out the result of studies is also a way to be sneered and treated like a madman at dinner table.

So what about statistical results from DNA decoding ? Do I have a theory? Well no, Foucault had a theory, I'm just using his theory to explain the possible negative consequences of such informations. The first one is a fact to illustrate the coming problems. Since humanity learned by that the HIV virus is more susceptible to touch someone with a coloured skin, the rise in donations towards remedies for against AIDS have slown down. Of course pharmaceutical companies are not going to spend as much more on a drug that touch more African countries than on a media generated-panicking simple flu.

But what about parental disrepancy, could it really create such a problem ? Well here comes Foucault and his biopower theory. Since institutional powers don't have anymore power over death, they constantly try to increase their power over life, ergo power over mariage, birth, cult of youth, video surveillance, drugs, and so on. Information about biological parenthood will be important informations for governments to know about children allocations, inheritance and other benefits that could be saved for the institutional powers.

Also, the protection on information varies from one government to the other. For example, in UK, the government protected the citizens from video surveillance abuses by allowing every citizen to ask for a copy of the video they are on. Will it stop in the future the governments to "protect" our information by allowing us a copy of such information ?

At the time of someone death, and this is already happening, investigators could go around find the other person related to the dead so everybody can claim a part of the estate, with small charge from the investigator. On children allocations, don't you think that either the state or the employer would save some money by continuing the constant push toward stopping nuclear families.
It might be a bit of a conspiracy theory. Well if I was listened to and understand, it would fall under the name of future worst case scenario based on already growing problems.

Baudrillardian Hell

Here's an article I wrote for the student newspaper of my uni. It will be surely cut down to a meaningless article, because that's what all our world has come down to nowadays : more and more information and less and less meaning. It is a clear Baudrillardian study of students elections, but it's adaptable to every elections. I've also been asked what I mean by Baudrillardian. Well Jean Baudrillard is a thinker who wrote about how hyperreal our world is becoming. To understand how our world is imploding, I'll advise anyone who can think critically to read " Simulacra and Simulation" by the same author.

Even the least engaging student would have noted the elections going around. Though I don't know to what extent I can call it an election. Of course I can, students are voting for a representative, I can assume the countdown won't be tricked and there is more than one candidate: all the ingredients for a fair election. But there are a few problems in sight. And they are not petty.

Well, the first thing to notice is that, probably like last year, the lack of interest of the students undermine the legitimacy of this election. Last year, only 10% of the students voted for a student representative. In some countries, it's not considered a valid election if it represent only a small proportion of those concerned. Coming from a country where voting is compulsory ( Belgium), I'll confess that I like to practice whenever I can my right not to vote. But I do need a reason not to vote, other than better things to do. I'm not saying that all the non-voting students share this position, I'm only saying that there is maybe a reason why the students aren't interested.

That's when the ridicule elements of these elections sank in me. I Make most of my observations at st. matts because that's where I study. But being a small campus, it might have been easier for me to approach some candidates and observe the different flyers - sorry, I meant “manifesto”- given around and the impressive amount of propaganda posters ( ask the candidates and they will all tell you they want a greener uni). I didn't find a poster that spoke to me. Most of the posters where common orders to vote for someone I didn't know. Some insulted me for not voting for someone I didn't know: I took this one as definite proof of the partisanship of political freedom.

The pictures on the posters were also interesting. They destroyed all sense of seriousness about this election. I've seen some posters with American Presidents on it. Was it aimed at the small American community of UWE, or did it signify that they thought like American Leaders. If I was on that road, I would have been more presumptuous and associate myself with Gandhi, or Stalin. Aren't these as much to the point as any other leader? I've also seen posters showing American flags, I'm assuming they're strong patriots in the wrong country, or poster that would show the mascot of the candidates. This last one is also an intriguing trend: a person needing a mascot. It's like Ronald being invented before McDonald's.

But I am being a bit superficial here. My problem is that there is not much to say about the content of this election. All the candidates in contention for the Student Representative President position formulate the same program, as they did last year : a more representative student union, better transport infrastructures, fighting for student rights ( god forbid actually stating said rights) against uni and “ more stuff to do” ... Some did add little things, but like a candidate said “if I say too much, I'll give promises I can't keep”. The candidates have only mentioned the problems most students have. Their solution is a promise to sort it out.

I don't know much about the power of the Student Union. I can only estimate that it doesn't give out much, except for the pecuniary compensation for the heavy duties, since no one wants to fight for it in the name of some real believes or values. What these students represent are the consensus. Our choice is to vote for the one we estimate would do the best job, as a technician, as Student Representative President, not the one who stands for our values. I couldn't see anyone expressing different values, anyone being exaggerated, there's no commie, no anarchist, no tory, no crazy, no labour, no one admitting they don't care, no religious fanatic, no sexual pervert, no snob, no intellectual elitist, no one different. I don't know, maybe I'm exaggerating, I hope I am, otherwise I'm just witnessing the slow death of democracy here at UWE.

really short story

So as an introduction, here is a small text I wrote for fun, but inspired me on a long project. I'm sorry for how immature this text sounds. Another one, with the same subject, is on its way. Anyway, since this one is done, I thought I might put it on the blog. I'm open for all critic, though I'm pretty sure I've heard them all ( too much reference to masturbation ( or creation, i forgot ), maybe a bit too oral in style, but if you feel you have good constructed critics, please do go for it). Enjoy !


Creation is masturbation and vice versa.

Sunday, as we call it now. And I wonder what the fuck I have done. I should have planned the whole thing. Well, now I'm out of it, I might as well sit back and keep watching. I mean I did it so I wouldn't be as bored anymore. It is cool to be omniscient, in a way, but there's no more surprise. I liked the power, but fuck I didn't know there could be guilt coming with it. I won't do anything anymore. I quit. I might as well.
It started with a caprice. I was omniscient, but what good does it do in the void. I mean void means no space, therefor no time. It's easy to be omniscient of course, when you are the only thing that might move or change. Well it wasn't as easy as it sounds. I couldn't see anything. Well now I can use an expression like it was as dark as a camel's ass. I had nothing to do except touch myself. An eternity of masturbation. I got bored, so I said put the light on. And the light appeared. So instead of seeing nothing, I saw blank, white everywhere. I stayed there a while. Touched my-self for a few hours more. I used to touch myself in the dark, but that wasn't the same thing. I decided to put on some cloth, not too tight so I could still discreetly do it, just in case I was watched. You just never know. I'm still wondering if I'm being watched by times.
So a few hours later, or days, or years, I didn't know really since there was nothing to give me the time, I decided to have a desk. I don't remember well what I said. I think I said let there be expanses... I wanted a bit more space. An office of some sort, so I could maybe “work” privately, some private heaven. You know, I decided I'd have a room I wouldn't touch much, and another room where I could play some games. Like “ let there be...”, a cool godly game I had just discovered. I thought it was a fun game once starting it. I also let my beard and hair grow a bit. Make myself look serious. Don't know. Boys will be boys.
It's afterwards that it became tricky. I mean I knew more or less, until that moment, what I wanted or needed for my fun. I mean I had the word or concepts to do what I had done so far. I divided the water closet from the office and the water closet from the other room, that i've put under my heaven. The thing is that I wanted something different for my creation. I wanted to have fun. So what I did is while the water was as big as eternity in the heavens, I decided to concentrate all the water from under. I've put it all in one round thing, so I'd have to concentrate and aim when I'd pee from now on. I also tried to take a dump there once I created it. The dump floated. So I took a few more. I liked what I did. So I decided to baptise this dump. That's what artist do, no ? I called it Earth. But of course, it smelled like shit. So I decided to invent sprays machine. This one took me time. I went “let there be vegetation” but the smell stayed, I mean grass couldn't do much. So I went “ Let there be plants yielding seed, you know, fruit trees” and the smell got a bit better.
When I look back. From there on, I centred most of my work on a piece of shit. What good could come out of it I thought at the time ? I don't know. Still, it's funny because this gas spray, I was astonished how quick there could just run out. They weren't really sustainable. How the fuck should I know that they wouldn't live that long. Just the time to go back to the office and the smell would come back. It took me a while to understand that it's just that when I open the door, the light coming out of heaven would let the plants live. So on the fourth day, I said “ let there be lights, to the expanse of the heaven...” This was an ingenuous thing I did. I created lamps that floated between my office and my play room where earth is. Because at first I've put a lamp on earth, but it just heated the shit out of my shit. So with this moving lamp, earth could cool down a bit, and yet the plants had the light they needed. These lamps, which I called planets and stars, had a cool rhythm too. First time I realised what time was.
So when this problem was solved, I walked back to my office. And there I got shit scared. I was impotent, physicaly speaking. I checked my penis and testicules for any lump that could indicate cancer or anything weird. Nothing unusual down there. I turned off the light, maybe it was just seeing myself constantly, the shame of it maybe caught me. Still nothing hard. I had to find something. I mean before playing god, I jerked off for eternity, having nothing to do. And now, my favourite sport just vanished for me. I don't know. So I went down to earth to distract myself. I decided to add a bit of spices to the plants, let them flourish better by adding proteins for them. So I said : “ Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above earth across the expanse of the heaven...” I thought it'd be fun to have little flying thingys coming from earth to the office. I was walking back to the office, to show birds the way, when I thought of solving two problems with one stone. I said to the fishes and birds “ be fruitful and multiply” ! I had them reproducing, so I didn't have to worry anymore about recreating them all the time. But best of all, I've invented animal porn to my delight. I mean passionate sex like they had turned me on, for a while.
I didn't think about it, but birds and fishes couldn't have instruments ressembling mine. It's neither hydrodynamics or aerodynamics. So it was fun at the beginning. But at some point, I lost my identification with them, I mean they were pleasuring each other, but not like I would do it. So I went on with my game “ let there be...” and I had fun creating all sizes and shapes of animals, every time male and female, so I could have some more recreational time, if you know what i mean. There are now some creatures with huge things and some with small ones. It's just funny to see how they got on with each other. I tried at some point inter-species sex, but they were just too much damages, especially with elephants and other animals like that.
But I don't know how long you can have an erection on seeing animals humping, but I couldn't keep it, whatever the variety i watched. I mean I could watch horses going on once or twice, but afterwards it got monotonic, and that for all animals. So I created a guy like me, a bit younger, a bit more muscely than me, just like I'd like to be. And I made a hot girl. Then I gave them different command. But it was just not that fun. I mean it was interactive. Interaction had been a problem though with the first girl. I couldn't keep giving order without being mesmerized by the scene, i felt like intervening and she wasn't really properly suited for me really. It was a bit like the inter-speceis catastrophes, but on a worst scale. So I had to give these little fuckers free choice. Liberty to do whatever they wanted. And they did profit from it! The things that went through there mind, you wouldn't believe.
So it's Sabbath now and the mistakes I've done just start to sank in my mind. I mean I'm tired as hell. Just too much work and too much masturbation at the same time. I just keep watching from my window. And I see the great sex, which I''m getting jealous off. That's why I just don't answer any prayer. I mean could you imagine the guts they have “ god could you make this wish come true” and so on. I've shouted it once, I won't repeat myself : “ You get sex and I get frustrated, isn't that enough !”. I know I only have myself to blame for that. And I made them to my image. They are going to fuck up like me. Why did I do it ? I guess it was a stupid whim. Be careful what you wish for, fuck yeah. I don't know. It depresses me. But I can't stop watching.

Small question on my readers ( if i have any regulars)

One of my resolution is to be more open on my writings. I was wondering if anybody would mind short stories on this blog ?

Small post on cultural studies and elitism

So this article is the result of a discussion with a french scholar and a french student for whom I both have esteem, and through our disagreements, I tend to develop certain ideas. This one is on our culture and the easy rejection sometimes made by the intellectuals of our world. It started with a television program on astrology. And jokes were made on the comment made by the astrologers on the show.

I was a bit uneasy at the jokes made, since the student and the scholars had both no knowledge of astrology. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it either. But I am victim of this curiosity for every kind of knowledge and sciences made throughout the ages. That is where our disagreement started. The student had a problem with the term astrology I guessed. Since he does classical studies and philosophy, there was no apparent logos in this term, since it was based purely on invented concepts, and the facts were improperly studied. To which I retorted that metaphysics was more or less the same. But in his opinion, metaphysics are based on some facts. Something I yet need to see, if that's possible. His second argument was that just like alchemy, astrology was an outdated science for our world to still consider it relevant in any way. Which I thought was funny coming from a classical study student.

The scholar had a problem on the fact that astrology was a belief, therefore not being a subject of quality for a study. I proposed theology to that. And he explained me that most of the important scholars in this discipline would never believed in miracles, but would interpret the miracles in the bibles to explain concepts inside the religion.

I actually agreed on both these points, but I still wouldn't accept there objection of astrology. Astrology is actually one of the oldest science on earth. It has the interesting aspect of having existed in most of the important cultures on earth.

Though it is not a science since it's theory are hardly provable, it is too stupid to reject it. I'm not saying that we should believe in it. I'm not saying that every astrologers are worth listening to. I guess most of them are charlatans. But I would listen to someone who studied astrology, who would explained me the different concepts developed by astrologers throughout history, its evolution and the difference in the angle taken towards this belief in the different cultures.

But astrology is here only an example of this presumption of people to know what is worthy of knowledge or not. These people I had these arguments with are both guys I respect. They are not pragmatist as such. They do favour culture over practice I'd say. But it is the culture of the elite more that a widespread view on culture. It is in a way restrictive. I understand the fear of letting the unworthy culture, if such a thing exists really, enter the realm of the intellectuals. But I think that such a fear shouldn't really be. What should be feared is only the person pretending to be master of a certain culture, and be rejected for his knowledge of the culture for the sole fact it is not recognised as a valuable culture, instead of having qualified authorities in this certain culture that can properly judge each other, under a proper epistemological scrutiny.

In a way, every angle of our culture is worthy of being known, but there is a certain minimum to be known every time to be able to properly talk about it. I wouldn't reject an astrologers as long as he knows well his subject, nor would I reject a good alchemist, a good lawyer and so on. As Jet Li said in Fearless, as Huo Yuanjiia, “ Every martial art is good, it is the knowledge the fighter has of his martial art that would make him a suitable fighter or not”. And this is true for every aspect of our culture.