Archive: war

The Liberal Democrats are pretty much the only political party I would consider voting for (well, I voted for everyone by Labour in the local elections in May because I was feeling particularly anti-Labour at the time, but you know what I mean). So the change in leadership is of interest to me.

In years gone by I would have described myself as a supporter of the Lib Dems. I guess I still am. But I’ve not been quite as enthused over the past year or so.

I’m not exactly sure what this is down to. Menzies Campbell’s time as leader of the federal party? Nicol Stephen’s rather rudderless leadership of the Scottish Lib Dems? My increasingly apathetic stance towards party politics? A bit of all three I guess. It will be interesting to see if Nick Clegg can get me to sit up.

The leadership campaign has yet again highlighted the dire nature of political discourse at the moment.

I have already seen two people interpreting the close result as evidence that the Lib Dems are deeply divided. The result was indeed impressively close, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Any leadership election that doesn’t see one candidate getting 100% of the votes is evidence of a divided party. It doesn’t mean anything.

All of the parties have well known divisions anyway. Blairites and Brownites in Labour, Eurosceptics in the Conservatives, gradualists and fundamentalists in the SNP. You wouldn’t expect anything else. No doubt a truly undivided party would soon enough find itself being criticised for being filled with flip-flopping robotic career politicians.

The alternative to having a leadership election is to have a coronation. In that case, everyone would throw stones at the Lib Dems for not having a leadership election. Plus, from what I gather, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are actually rather similar ideologically. On this basis, you’d expect a close election.

Also, the bad side of the media is never too far away when it comes to the Lib Dems. There is an interesting post at The Yorksher Gob (via MatGB) on why it was a mistake to elect Nick Clegg. He was the media’s favourite, which means they can’t wait to crucify him.

It wouldn’t surprise me if some of those predictions come to fruition. The media has an agenda against the Liberal Democrats for some reason — probably because having a third party just makes issues so damn difficult to simplify everything into their favoured ‘he says’, ‘she says’ format.

They spent years disseminating innuendos and speculations about Charles Kennedy’s drink problem. Then when the Lib Dems finally got rid of him? All of a sudden Charles Kennedy was the best leader since sliced bread, his colleagues knifed him in the back, the Lib Dems were the nasty party.

Before he became Lib Dem leader, Menzies Campbell was a well-respected ‘elder statesman’ figure. When he became leader? He was a dithering old pensioner who was practically unable to string a sentence together. Oh, and when they got rid of him on the back of relentless media criticism, once again the Lib Dems were the nasty party, unfaithful and disloyal.

It makes me despair. Tony Blair can dangerously erode our civil liberties and engage in an illegal, unjustified war that kills tens of thousands. Yet how is he presented by the media? Magical untouchable Teflon Tony! Meanwhile, Menzies Campbell was hounded out for being old.

Hello there. I’m still really busy at the moment. It’s the last week of teaching at university, and with that comes a deluge of coursework hand-ins. Still, they are all quite interesting so it doesn’t feel too much like hard work, so it is consuming a lot of my time. Typical that this would be the week when I was asked to go into work almost every day.

My point is that, while I normally like to just pop out blog posts as and when, this week’s posts have been pre-recorded, though no more polished than usual unfortunately. I knew that this week would be busy, so I prepared some delightful posts that aren’t about what’s happening right now.

I hope it doesn’t make you feel empty to realise that I wrote that post about Twitter before I liveblogged the grand prix. Nor celebrated the second birthday of my iRiver (and the 21st birthday of me) several days before the actual event. Look out tomorrow for a post with a witty pun on ‘RSS’ which was written a week ago.

But it turns out that, slap bang in the middle of the busiest week I’ve had since the third week of January (okay, so that’s not too impressive…), here I am wasting my time writing blog posts. That is because it is my birthday, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to be spending all of it writing about fiscal autonomy.

I have also been tagged with a meme about the Iraq war. For some reason, people seem to think that the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war is more important than the second anniversary of me owning an iRiver. I don’t understand that mentality myself, but I will play along nevertheless.

I was tagged by Clive from The UK Today and the meme was started by Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads.

What did you post on 20 March, 2003?
(or as close to this date as possible)

I didn’t actually post on my blog on 20 March, 2003. This possibly indicates that I am a sadder 21 year old than I was a 17 year old. But I did write a post on the 19th. And another on the 23rd.

I would like to remind you at this point that in these posts I was 16 or 17, and that back then I was even more of a dick than I am now. I wouldn’t recommend anybody to visit my old blog because it really is quite bad. I never look at it myself because I’d rather not be reminded of it. It was from before I learned how to embellish my personal life to make it sound interesting.

I don’t even think I read other people’s blogs back then, so it truly is self-indulgent stuff. So there you have a post about some CDs I got in the post (yawn, mind you it contains an interesting reference to Chris Clark) and another one that actually seems to be about nothing.

As I’ve grown up while being a blogger I’ve been very aware of how much I have changed and… well, grown up. When you’re 16 or 17 you think you’re really smart, but actually you’re not. Of course, now that I’m 21 I am obviously a genius. (When I’m 25 I’ll be bemoaning the quality of this post.)

Seriously though, I always wonder if I will one day seriously regret blogging (and therefore having quite an in-depth record of my life and opinions up on the interwebs for all to see) from such an early age. I mean, somebody can see something I wrote a few years ago and take that as my opinion even though it is a few years old. They might not realise that I was a teenager with ridiculous hair when I wrote that stuff. A few years when you’re in your teens is different to a few years when you’re an adult.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand. Here is a post that I wrote on the 17th of March 2003 which was actually about the then imminent war in Iraq. I actually remember deciding specifically not to blog about Iraq on the day itself. I felt all warred out, which is pretty much how I’ve felt ever since then.

Duncan Stephen: 17th March 2003 (posting as doctorvee)

I’ve not actually re-read that post, because I’m scared of what it contains. So, er, sorry if it’s really bad, which it probably is.

Now I have to tag five people. Tough. We are talking about four years back here, so I have to think of people who might have had something to say on the internet back then, which I don’t think is so easy. Anyway, here is my best shot.

Back in September, one of the reasons I gave for wanting to re-start the Scottish Blogging Roundup was the fact that it was difficult to find any SNP supporters. Of course, since then I’ve discovered absolutely loads, and I’ve been more aware of the fact that there are hardly any Labour supporting blogs.

So I was quite pleased when I found out about Ridiculous Politics. Unfortunately — and I find that this is a theme with Labour blogs — it mentions almost nothing about Labour. It’s always, “Ho ho, look at what the SNP did! Aren’t the Lib Dems idiots! Look at those awful Tories!” And never, ever, anything that actually talks about Labour policy. I wonder why!

If you don’t believe me, here is a breakdown of the current stories on the front page of Ridiculous Politics:

  • Conservatives — 18½
  • Lib Dems — 4½
  • SNP — 4½
  • Plaid Cymru — 1
  • Labour — 1
  • UKIP — ½

Yes, this Ridiculous Politics is such a fan of Labour that it saw fit to write about the Labour party once over the course of its past thirty posts. And even then, it wasn’t so much a celebration of goverment policy as a report of some anti-BBC comments made by famous Blairite Dennis Skinner. Meanwhile, the obsession with the Conservatives is quite striking. (Incidentally, half marks were awarded for those instances where Ridiculous Politics managed to attack two parties in one post!)

This is what usually upsets me most about Labour supporters. All to often their only strongly held conviction is that they support Labour (often re-stated as “At least I’m not a Tory!” or “At least I’m not a Lib Dem!” or “At least I’m not a nationalist!”). Just look at, for instance, Councillor Terry Kelly, or Councillor Bob Piper who was often evasive when it came to actual Labour policy.

For a lot of these people, Labour could probably set up a gulag and they would justify it by saying, “Well the Tories had the Poll Tax.” I mean, just look at what Labour has done over the past decade. Iraq, ID cards, tuition fees, foundation hospitals, all the rest of it. You can bet your house that if a Conservative government had done all this, these same Labour supporters would have gone on a rabid rampage. But because the government that did all this happens to wear a red rosette, it — often literally — gets away with murder.

I wish more Labour supporters would just tell us what their principles actually were (apart from the principle of supporting Labour of course). Because all they ever express is some kind of holier-than-thou “at least I’m not a Tory” nonsense.

There is something about Matthew Herbert, the revered electronic music producer who has a new album out at the moment, that I find a little bit annoying. Don’t get me wrong here. I have three Herbert-produced albums — ‘Goodbye Swingtime’, ‘Likes…’ and ‘Bodily Functions’ — and I think they are all pretty good, especially ‘Goodbye Swingtime’. But recently I haven’t felt the urge to buy any more Herbert stuff.

My problem with him is this: noise. By noise I don’t mean the completely insane dense noise music à la Merzbow. I actually quite like that sort of stuff; it can be quite fun. If I’m angry or upset or something, noise music is actually the very best thing I can put on because it kind of neutralises me, and once it’s all over I feel okay. I dunno why that works, but I shouldn’t question these things.

But in this case I mean noise as in found sounds. For the uninitiated, Matthew Herbert’s big gimmick is to stick a microphone up a chicken’s bum, record it taking a dump, then turn the sound into a quaint, skittering (pun intended) jolly piece of music that’s meant to get you wiggling a bit.

Once again, I should stress that I do not have a problem with found sounds at all. In fact, I have read that Autechre make heavy use of found sounds, which is believeable. But they do it really cleverly because they do it with the intention of making good music. Matthew Herbert, on the other hand, does it to make some kind of grandiose statement. At first I thought it was really cool. Ripping up copies of The Daily Mail in time to the music? How can you resist?

But after a while I began to wonder if the big concepts were getting in the way of making good music. If you read all of the liner notes for ‘Goodbye Swingtime’, which was released at the very height of the Iraq war debate, there is a lot of shit in there. Whether you agree with the broad thrust of his argument or not (and I happened to be against the invasion), it is easy to see that there is a lot of extremely pretentious bollocks going on in the album. Here is an example of the notes for one of the tracks, ‘The Three W’s':

Sounds: Vocals by Mara Carlyle, Typing of the URL for www.soaw.org, the School of Americas Watch website dictating American involvement in Latin American dictatorships. Printing of pages from the same website / Flugel horn by Pete Wraight.

Sure enough, listen to the track and there is the sound of an inkjet printer churning away, presumably printing pages from said website. I mean, fair enough if Matthew Herbert feels like this message should get out, but it sounds shit on the record.

In the notes for another track, ‘Misprints’, surrounded by the usual notes crediting musicians, there is this:

…Newspaper clippings about Iraq from around the world shaped in to instruments and filled with popcorn, rice and foreign coins…

‘Simple Mind’:

…Band also played the instruments without blowing them…

Also peppered around the album is the sound of books by Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Greg Palast and others either being flicked through or silently read. Presumably all of this is meant to enlighten the listener via the mystical voodoo telepathic power of the CD in a stereo. I think the idea is that if you hear (I say ‘hear’, but all you actually hear is pages being turned) on the album a saxophonist silently reading Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men then you too can become a ranting, fat, hypocritical millionaire who likes to dress up as a tramp.

Herbert getting political
Herbert getting political
As I said, it is all very well if Matthew Herbert wants his political viewpoints to be known, but it doesn’t make for good music. It just makes for embarassing liner notes. There is hardly anything worse than a musician pretending he is an expert in international affairs. You need look no further than those posers Bob “ten out of ten” Geldof and Bono to see the absolute tossery that this leads to. This stuff is no better than Tony Blair stiltedly posing with his Stratocaster. I buy a CD to listen to music. If I want lectures on international politics I’ll buy a book.

‘Goodbye Swingtime’ was all right though. I still think it’s a pretty good album, so I was interested when his following album, ‘Plait du Jour’, was released. It was an album all about food politics. As I recall, the general thrust of the argument was, “Buy all your food from local farmers, but don’t let African farmers starve.” I’m not sure how buying British produce is meant to help poor African farmers. Still, that is his viewpoint which he is entitled to, so I was still going to buy the album because the music was still going to be good, right?

Well it turned out that ‘Plait du Jour’ was where musique concrète turned musique wet. Matthew Herbert exactly recreated a meal that Nigella Lawson once cooked for George W. Bush. Then he whipped his microphone out and recorded the meal being run over by a tank (the tank was chosen even though we should “start no wars”). Okay, it raises a smile, but does it result in good music? I have no idea because as soon as I read about it I decided I was not going to touch that album with a bargepole.

I once asked a Róisín Murphy fan to convince me to buy her solo album which was produced by Matthew Herbert. I explained, “I’ve gone off Matthew Herbert.” The reply? “Herbert is back to his best!” Thank goodness, I thought. I read on: “He recorded her making cups of tea, whacking a notepad about, jumping up and down on bed, hissing…” My hopes were dashed. I still haven’t bought the Róisín Murphy album.

Here is the blurb from a recent edition of the tip-top Radio 3 programme, Mixing It:

For his latest album release, Matthew Herbert has concentrated on writing songs, although his experimental side is still very much at work, with sound sources as diverse as coffins, petrol pumps and an RAF Tornado bomber, and drum tracks recorded in a variety of locations: a hot air balloon, under the sea and in a car travelling at 100mph.

Since this is supposed to be an album of songs, I wonder if he has also recorded sounds from inside his own arse — otherwise how would he record the vocals with his head stuck so far up it? As I said at the start of this post, found sounds are absolutely fine. But with Matthew Herbert nobody ever talks about the music, they only talk about his mad recording exploits. Herbert allows all of these silly ideas to get in the way of a good tune which, at the end of the day, is surely what it is all about?

I shouldn’t really single out Matthew Herbert like this because he is not the only artist who puts the concept and the found sounds ahead of the music. You know me — I like music with an experimental edge, and in that arena being pretentious isn’t exactly an unusual thing. But there is a line to be drawn.

When I first heard that Venetian Snares was making an album with his girlfriend Hecate which was made entirely out of the sounds they made while having sex I thought it was a genius idea. The problem was, when the album was released it sounded like all they ever do in bed is fart.

Olive branch: To prove that I still quite like Matthew Herbert, despite all the bile I directed towards him in this post, I am putting his ‘Hoedown Bump’ instrumental remix of Jamie Lidell’s ‘Multiply’ here, because I think it’s really cool. As always, you’ll have to press play every 30 seconds.