triste vida la del carretero que anda por esos cañaverales, sabiendo que su vida es un destierro, se alegra con sus cantares

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

forthcoming cultural highlights

This is a long shot, but in the unlikely event that you (a) are reading this, (b) live in London, (c) are free this Thursday and Friday and (d) don't already know about either or both of these gigs (or play in the band....), then you should know about the following:

1. 9pm, Thursday 23 March, the Fleapit, Columbia Rd, Hackney: heavy metal psychedelic ambient jazz combo Moist will expand your psychic universe with no admission fee (and might even buy you a drink, apparently). Read an interview with Moist.

2. 9:30pm (doors open at 8pm, food & drinks available), Friday 24 March, the misleadingly named "Jazzlive" at The Crypt, St Giles Centre, 81 Camberwell Church St, Camberwell: Guillermo Rozenthuler with Rioplatenses with what is billed as "a powerful, evocative, refined take on contemporary songs from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and beyond". A bit more of an unknown quantity, but I heard Guillermo at WOMAD in 2004 and have been waiting to hear more, so I'll be there. Always good to have a night out with the diaspora anyway. Tickets: £6/ £4

Friday, March 03, 2006

Mobile Music Technology Workshop, University of Sussex

Straying once again from the South London theme - but at least in the right geographical direction. Just back from the first day of a two-day conference surrounded by very clever people talking about mobile technology and its impact on music. The day started with a proper university lecture from Dr Michael Bull, outlining a somewhat polemical view of technology in which he updated Barthes' take on the Citroën DS (the modern equivalent of a Gothic cathedral, a magical icon built by the passion of unknown craftsmen and recognised by the whole population), to apply to the iPod. His narrative is that Western aesthetics are on a trajectory from the large and public to the small and private; the space where you go for therapy, transcendence, immunity, order and security - and of course music - was the cathedral, then the car, and is now the little white box and earbud bubble. The iPod is the best line of defence against Adorno's "chill of unmitigated struggle of all against all", but in the process of making ourselves warmer, we contribute to the chill around us (a bit like a fridge in reverse, perhaps?).

Well, maybe. No one can deny that the technology of individual consumption tends to have an isolating effect. However, most of the rest of the day was taken up in consideration of prototypes where the latest incarnations of mobile devices and networks are harnessed in favour of reclaiming the publicness of public spaces; whether by the placement of site-specific sound in public urban spaces; music-sharing and recommendations based on physical proximity to "familiar strangers" (BluetunA) or most interestingly (in my breakout at least) by creating a virtual public space (Tactical Sound Garden) in which the city is "overdubbed" by a wifi-borne sound collage which can be collectively tended by its users. In all of these the atomised individuality of the mobile listening experience is subverted in different ways, each involving its own element both of community and unpredictability, and in many cases of participation. Which I would argue is part of the wider trajectory of music technology in our century which favours active participation where the dominant technologies of the twentieth century (radio, record player) favoured passive consumption.

Tactical Sound Garden has been a definite highlight so far - it's easy to let the imagination run a bit wild when considering ideas which are as yet untested, but I could imagine how this could somehow bring together the qualities of an open-ended, virtual Musicircus with those of urban architecture - the combination of planned and emergent art in a public space.

and another thing

Regular readers will have been waiting with bated breath for the conclusion to my two-part rant on the subject of this country's attitude to immigration. Actually this bit is more to do with bureaucracy in general. I'm sorry about this, but I need to start with a quote from an official document (the SET(M) Immigration and Nationality Directorate form, since you asked, version 09/2005):

"Please provide ten items of correspondence of the kind, or from the sources listed below, addressed to you and your spouse or partner jointly during each of the past 2 years if they clearly show that you live together at the same address. At least 5 of these documents should be from different sources. If you have not received any such correspondence that is addressed to you and your spouse or partner jointly, it is acceptable to provide no less than 4 items addressed to one of you and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner during each of the past 2 years so long as they show the same address."

OK. Leaving aside the difficulty of digging out gas bills and so on that have been addressed jointly to two individuals, let's just focus on that last sentence. Shall we have it again?

"it is acceptable to provide no less than 4 items addressed to one of you and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner during each of the past 2 years so long as they show the same address."

It has a nice precise, anal, irrevocable ring about it, hasn't it? They know exactly what they want and they've made it perfectly clear. Or have they? Well, that's the problem - no.

  • "No less [sic] than 4 items addressed to one of you" - but is there a maximum?

  • "and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner" - but is there a minimum?

  • "during each of the past 2 years" - are we talking calendar years or 12-month periods?

  • "so long as they show the same address" - what if, like us, you've moved house about four times?

  • The previous sentence spoke of "at least 5 of these documents" coming from "different sources". Does this apply here?


You might argue that I'm splitting hairs - but this is just the problem, I have to. The language is dry, official and pretends to be clear. You have one shot at this. It's costing you £500. You know from the tone that if you get it wrong you will fail. But the content is totally vague. In my experience, this is a defining feature of bureaucractic language, and it's an insidious, pervasive, low-level abuse of power. It says: we have the control, we have the authority, we will explain ourselves in our terms and if you don't understand them (or if we just don't bother to get it right) then that's your lookout. It's one of the things that makes life less worth living.

do you like reading blogs? if so, er, read on


This is a snippet from babywelcome.com. I just thought it was funny.