Channel 4's grim new experiment in the name of - who knows what? Science? Education? Entertainment? - well, whatever, sees 3 heroin addicts go from being regular drug users, as they have been, for the last x years of their life (in all cases, more than 10), to cold turkey straight away: no comedown, no rehab, just straight into a clinic and no drugs. It's barely educational. It's too grim for entertainment. How might science benefit? At best, it might be reality TV - the problem is certainly real enough, dealing as it does with the reality of the destroyed bodies of heroin which, if the project is successful, may raise the self-esteem of those trying to kick drugs and maybe raise the awareness of the drug problem in many cities nationwide.
The show pits a bizarre mix of Big Brother-esque live footage from creative camera angles and serious comment together, fronted by Channel 4 News' respectable Krishnan Guru-Murthy. The background 'story' footage contained needles being inserted into legs, heroin being smoked and captured the eyes of one user who's dull eyes before her fix seemed ready to pop out afterwards. 'Live' footage sees 26 year old Darren throwing up the contents of his stomach over his bed, his face and his clothes before trying to go back to sleep (I think they had all been heavily sedated going into the Big Brother house, I mean clinic).
While the images may be hard-hitting, it is hard to feel too much sympathy for the addicts as, after their last 'fix' before the detox, they talk confidently and easily about getting off the drug that they have been dependent on every fucking day for more than 10 years. For instance, the arrogance of Alison, "my last fix before I'm clean" she laughs, as though she's about to go on a diet to lose a few pounds.
What's worse is that clearly these people and their families have been through the turmoil for many years, without any sign of breaking the problem as the users carry on injecitng. Yet, confront the addicts with a Channel 4 camera and suddenly on cue "there's tears coming out from everywhere" (1) as the mum of two sits in her bathroom waiting for the heroin fumes to disperse so her daughter can use the toilet, and the parents talk to the interviewer about how they are/aren't coping with an addicted child. Then there's the sudden revelation to the mother that her duaghter's been popping about 30 pills a day, and Channel 4 is there to capture the moment when she receives this news which her daughter had kept secret for 6 years until blurting it out on live television. You can almost imagine:
Dr: How many pills do you take?
Patient: About 30 a days.
Dr: Jesus Christ. Hey Krishnan, get the parents in here and film me asking these questions again. This is astonishing.
So call me a heartless bastard, but on tonight's first episode, you'd have to ask, first, why bother making this programme? It's implied that heroin is overpowering for all those addicted to it, yet there are just three people here being helped. None of the patients endear themselves to the viewer, none of the stories are heart-breaking, or if they are, it's only because ANY heroin addict's story would be heart-breaking. He wanted to be an RAF pilot but heroin has blown his chances of any decent career? How sad. I hope he gets cleaned up in this special clinic funded by advertisers' money. But where, then, is the television piece on the homeless heroin addict who's dying from AIDS contracted from sharing a needle?
Secondly, you'd ask: why bother helping these people at all? Clearly, they've never bothered to help themselves before now, and only one of the three contestansts/patients has expressed what appeared to be a genuine desire to get off the drugs before they were picked for this programme.
Whatever Going Cold Turkey is supposedly in the name of, it seems that all the programme will do is highlight the reality of being addicted to heroin, bringing it into the public eye for a week or so like Comic Relief does with Africa, before the real reality; the scope of the problem, crushes belief and interest and people return to their normal lives, glad it isn't them. Channel 4's hopeless mix of emotive documentary and reality tv serves only to blur the problem further still.
(1) The Libertines; What A Waster. (Up the Bracket, 2002)
What a waster, what a fucking waster
you've pissed it all up the wall, round the corner where they chased her
there's tears coming out from everywhere, the city's hard, the city's fair,
get back inside, you've got nothing on, no
you mind your bleedin' own, you two bob cunt.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Cynical on Valentine's Day
No it's not because I didn't get any cards. What can I expect after being too hungover in the morning when I was meant to get cards to send to others? In all seriousness though, it was something about Hollyoakes on tuesday which inspired this post.
A lot of people, nowadays, view V Day with huge skepticism because it has, in the age of consumerism, become a big commerical event now. Millions of cards, countless 'love' compilation CDs, overblown flower bouquets, DVD releases of films just at the right time: advertisers now have yet another date for the diary for exploiting the average sap in the name of love. My cynicism, though, isn't about the commericalised nature of Valentine's Day. The point is, the advertising must work because every year it grows and the campaigns start even earlier. So what does that say for love in a 21st century global village?
Has Valentine's day become the one day a year where, to quote Hollyoakes, "we can say how we feel about each other?" If so, then is the only way to do this through material goods, i.e, the more you love someone these days = the amount you spend on them? Is that what love is in today's world of speed-dating, 1-in-3 divorce rates, online relationships and "i luv u" text messages? Love is supposed to be something you can't pin down, something immaterial, something unmeasurable, something you can have but can't hold, the one thing above all things...
Isn't it?
A lot of people, nowadays, view V Day with huge skepticism because it has, in the age of consumerism, become a big commerical event now. Millions of cards, countless 'love' compilation CDs, overblown flower bouquets, DVD releases of films just at the right time: advertisers now have yet another date for the diary for exploiting the average sap in the name of love. My cynicism, though, isn't about the commericalised nature of Valentine's Day. The point is, the advertising must work because every year it grows and the campaigns start even earlier. So what does that say for love in a 21st century global village?
Has Valentine's day become the one day a year where, to quote Hollyoakes, "we can say how we feel about each other?" If so, then is the only way to do this through material goods, i.e, the more you love someone these days = the amount you spend on them? Is that what love is in today's world of speed-dating, 1-in-3 divorce rates, online relationships and "i luv u" text messages? Love is supposed to be something you can't pin down, something immaterial, something unmeasurable, something you can have but can't hold, the one thing above all things...
Isn't it?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Don't have a cow, man
I wonder if this post title will offend certain religions who see cows as sacred creatures: cartoon Bart Simpson's infamous retort about not getting overly stressed out over something. Which is a rather ingenius segue into the content of this post: the Islamic demonstrations after the publication in European print mediums of 'offensive' cartoons; damaging the holy image of Mohammed, their God.
Since the publications, the Islamic protesters haven't helped their image in this country by marching through the capital carrying placards proclaiming: "Behead those who insult Islam". Lord knows that's all the Sun readership need to be persuaded to sign petitions about taking away Asylum Seeker rights and whatnot. I think these Islamic radicals wandering through London have overestimated the effect, certainly the intent, of the pubished cartoons. Would they have really been published as anything other than cartoons, when this is the reaction they get? Quite dryly, a leading Irag newspaper announced today that it is setting up a competetion for anyone to enter; drawing cartoons about the Holocaust. Quite what this tit-for-tat game will achieve is not clear. When it comes from the Holocaust though, it seems that Kate Winslet's (Extras) opinion on it would be appropriate: "We get it, it was grim, let's move on."
However, those who are hysterically outraged at the extremity of the Islamic protests would do well to take a balanced viewpoint. Sure, no one can go around freely announcing all Europe's impending decapitation. But simply saying 'That's too extreme, they can't do that' is too biased. From an Islamic point of view, publishing cartoons caricaturing their God is something that wouldn't even be dreamed up in Islamic countries. There's always another side. Incitement to terorrism, as an effect of the protests, is something more major than a 'jokey' cartoon, surely? But a cartoon to you or me is someone else's call to arms. Reluctance on both sides to negotiate, apologise or stand down from the conflict isn't helping. But each side is in the wrong to the other, so diffusing the situation before it comes to a head is the crucial next step needed, quickly.
Since the publications, the Islamic protesters haven't helped their image in this country by marching through the capital carrying placards proclaiming: "Behead those who insult Islam". Lord knows that's all the Sun readership need to be persuaded to sign petitions about taking away Asylum Seeker rights and whatnot. I think these Islamic radicals wandering through London have overestimated the effect, certainly the intent, of the pubished cartoons. Would they have really been published as anything other than cartoons, when this is the reaction they get? Quite dryly, a leading Irag newspaper announced today that it is setting up a competetion for anyone to enter; drawing cartoons about the Holocaust. Quite what this tit-for-tat game will achieve is not clear. When it comes from the Holocaust though, it seems that Kate Winslet's (Extras) opinion on it would be appropriate: "We get it, it was grim, let's move on."
However, those who are hysterically outraged at the extremity of the Islamic protests would do well to take a balanced viewpoint. Sure, no one can go around freely announcing all Europe's impending decapitation. But simply saying 'That's too extreme, they can't do that' is too biased. From an Islamic point of view, publishing cartoons caricaturing their God is something that wouldn't even be dreamed up in Islamic countries. There's always another side. Incitement to terorrism, as an effect of the protests, is something more major than a 'jokey' cartoon, surely? But a cartoon to you or me is someone else's call to arms. Reluctance on both sides to negotiate, apologise or stand down from the conflict isn't helping. But each side is in the wrong to the other, so diffusing the situation before it comes to a head is the crucial next step needed, quickly.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Google Video - democratic or dangerous?
Google's march towards taking over the internet, and nowadays, the world, continued recently with the launch of their latest service, Google Video. The idea behind it is to allow everyone to be a movie producer, director and publisher all at once. Actual tv companies can put out trailers, episodes and snippets; while amatuer videos where anything goes are now going to be available under one mass library run by the esteemed search engine creators Google.
The problem that comes with this is like anything that happens regarding the internet and censorship. Critics have already attacked Google's new tool for, as the charge goes, allowing content which isn't suitable for all ages and natures, and with such easy availability. Google's argument is that it is, and always has been, about allowing users democratic access to information. By doing so they have become the number one search engine online, and are now a giant of a company within the internet industry.
Obviously, Google isn't allowing vidoes of child porn, hardcore porn, violence or anything of such extreme nature, and its content is monitored and censored when it gets put online. These sort of areas are the ones that always come up when it comes to the regulating the internet so it would be ridiculous for them to attempt it. However, one user's softcore is another user's hardcore, etc, so it becomes hard to draw the line. Google, naturally, want to attract as much attention and business as possible in order to compete with and outdo rivals, and that means innovating and constantly reinventing the boundaries. As I've said, there are obvious boundaries of acceptable content which Google has not crossed. But since Google is the first major company to offer such a service, they also want to be able to capture as much of the market as possible: to do otherwise would be stupid because someone (Murdoch) comes along, and raises the stakes that little bit more to offer something extra for users, and takes away the business. At the end of the day, Google's worth hundreds of millions, and you don't get like that in the media by playing nice.
Google have been scrutinised so because of their familiarity: I mean, if you really do want to see a busty blonde girl getting ruined by a big black cock, there are millions of websites just waiting for your credit card. In fact, you'd probably go to Google.com to search for the websites. Google has always been a tool; for finding sites, images and more, and now they're offering a service that allows anyone to put out videos, and anyone to watch them for free. With their censorship they enforce, Google are still being as democratic as they can be. While the internet era is well and truly today, and the world will never (barring a meteor) return to pre-internet days, the glory of its emergence has now fizzled out. Like just about anywhere in the world; the internet is a beautiful city, but there are some streets you really don't want to go down. The internet isn't a nice place, in truth, but the sweeping arguments that go with regulating it have missed the point rather: that Google is a business in an industry where innovation rules, and user hits are power.
The problem that comes with this is like anything that happens regarding the internet and censorship. Critics have already attacked Google's new tool for, as the charge goes, allowing content which isn't suitable for all ages and natures, and with such easy availability. Google's argument is that it is, and always has been, about allowing users democratic access to information. By doing so they have become the number one search engine online, and are now a giant of a company within the internet industry.
Obviously, Google isn't allowing vidoes of child porn, hardcore porn, violence or anything of such extreme nature, and its content is monitored and censored when it gets put online. These sort of areas are the ones that always come up when it comes to the regulating the internet so it would be ridiculous for them to attempt it. However, one user's softcore is another user's hardcore, etc, so it becomes hard to draw the line. Google, naturally, want to attract as much attention and business as possible in order to compete with and outdo rivals, and that means innovating and constantly reinventing the boundaries. As I've said, there are obvious boundaries of acceptable content which Google has not crossed. But since Google is the first major company to offer such a service, they also want to be able to capture as much of the market as possible: to do otherwise would be stupid because someone (Murdoch) comes along, and raises the stakes that little bit more to offer something extra for users, and takes away the business. At the end of the day, Google's worth hundreds of millions, and you don't get like that in the media by playing nice.
Google have been scrutinised so because of their familiarity: I mean, if you really do want to see a busty blonde girl getting ruined by a big black cock, there are millions of websites just waiting for your credit card. In fact, you'd probably go to Google.com to search for the websites. Google has always been a tool; for finding sites, images and more, and now they're offering a service that allows anyone to put out videos, and anyone to watch them for free. With their censorship they enforce, Google are still being as democratic as they can be. While the internet era is well and truly today, and the world will never (barring a meteor) return to pre-internet days, the glory of its emergence has now fizzled out. Like just about anywhere in the world; the internet is a beautiful city, but there are some streets you really don't want to go down. The internet isn't a nice place, in truth, but the sweeping arguments that go with regulating it have missed the point rather: that Google is a business in an industry where innovation rules, and user hits are power.
Monday, January 23, 2006
The back at Uni view
Keen followers of my blog (ahahahaha) might notice the ability to write during term time is something that's been missing from this blog since I started year 2 of Uni. That's right; I'm online. Last thursday, the 19th (a day to remember), BT, god bless 'em, connected our line at their end and lo, the internet arrived at Bournemouth!
It's not, actually, that great a thing: with all this work I have due, and my committment to not going out more than once a week in order to maximise my time to do it, the evenings coming home at 3am being off my face have been replaced, so far, by staying up til 3am being tired and on the internet. So like a poisened chalice, the internet has been....erm, a chalice....with poison...
I don't know whether I'm under contract with Nerve* magazine, the Bournemouth Uni magazine that I write sports comment for (I do really: I've not signed anything), but just in case, I will refrain from putting the article I've written for the next issue in this post otherwise it would smack of not being able to think of anything else to write. Suffice to say, the underhanded News of the World paper deserves its up and coming sueing by Sven-Goran Eriksson after its needless and disgusting actions recently with the England manager. A tabloid rag indeed it is.
It's 1:40am, and since this was only a post to catch up, I'm going to bed.
It's not, actually, that great a thing: with all this work I have due, and my committment to not going out more than once a week in order to maximise my time to do it, the evenings coming home at 3am being off my face have been replaced, so far, by staying up til 3am being tired and on the internet. So like a poisened chalice, the internet has been....erm, a chalice....with poison...
I don't know whether I'm under contract with Nerve* magazine, the Bournemouth Uni magazine that I write sports comment for (I do really: I've not signed anything), but just in case, I will refrain from putting the article I've written for the next issue in this post otherwise it would smack of not being able to think of anything else to write. Suffice to say, the underhanded News of the World paper deserves its up and coming sueing by Sven-Goran Eriksson after its needless and disgusting actions recently with the England manager. A tabloid rag indeed it is.
It's 1:40am, and since this was only a post to catch up, I'm going to bed.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
A new dawn, a New Year
So 2006 is upon, indeed already washing over us as it is now the 3rd of January. This is probably going to be a grumpy post, but then my grumpiness breeds criticism, and there wouldn't be much point in a blog if it just said "this and that are good and ok".
Mainly I'm annoyed because I spent 9 hours at Sainsbury's today, working on a bank holiday after also working on New Year's day. Sainsbury's, it became evident, was the only place in Rustington open, when the entire village and its dog started queuing up at one of the 20 tills open at 3pm. I've only been working there for two weeks over Christmas and I've had enough - thank God I only have one more shift to do on wednesday. I just lost my will to be cheery and overly polite when, at 5:55pm, 5 minutes before closing, the announcement came over for people to come and buy because there was no time left to shop, and I looked down the end of my checkout and saw 5 or 6 people with not just a few bits of shopping queuing up. When the second or third customer came through, and said to me "You're closing early tonight", it took all my strength not to retort 'You should be thankful we're open at all at 6pm on a Bank Holiday, you stupid, old, ungrateful bint'.
Anyway, it's because I'm tired - staying up til this hour (1am ish) and having to get up at 9:30 and 8:30 respectively. Tomorrow I've got no such commitment, except for having to write a literature essay...oh.
Still, the initial part of 2006 was great - at a pub for New Year's Eve with friends from college and - bizarrely - my parents who happened to be there with their friends. I don't remember 3 and a half hour worth of drinking, nor why it took me two hours to walk home. Still, I enjoyed New Year's celebrations as I predicted I would in my previous post; much more than Christmas Day.
I ranted then about consumerism, and today we were selling chocolate eggs. Christmas Day, with 3 months of expectation behind it, was only 8 DAYS ago and now it's all about Easter eggs! Admittedly, the big ones are not on sale yet, but all the mini-eggs and truffle eggs and extra eggs that rake in the money for Cadbury's and Nestle etc are out in force already. You can see how very easily, and very quickly, two religious based holidays have become distorted and twisted into universal celebrations of material goods and chocolate, with preceeding sagas, months long, of advertising putting out the message of nothing at all, except to make people not think about what the adverts are asking them to do, and just doing it. Certainly, no one is thinking of the reasons why these dates in December and April are noteworthy in the first place - indeed, I put April as a month because even now, as I criticise, I don't know the exact dates that are important when it comes to Easter.
That said, I LOVE Creme Eggs and I will be buying them from time to time in the next 4 months or so while they're on sale.
Mainly I'm annoyed because I spent 9 hours at Sainsbury's today, working on a bank holiday after also working on New Year's day. Sainsbury's, it became evident, was the only place in Rustington open, when the entire village and its dog started queuing up at one of the 20 tills open at 3pm. I've only been working there for two weeks over Christmas and I've had enough - thank God I only have one more shift to do on wednesday. I just lost my will to be cheery and overly polite when, at 5:55pm, 5 minutes before closing, the announcement came over for people to come and buy because there was no time left to shop, and I looked down the end of my checkout and saw 5 or 6 people with not just a few bits of shopping queuing up. When the second or third customer came through, and said to me "You're closing early tonight", it took all my strength not to retort 'You should be thankful we're open at all at 6pm on a Bank Holiday, you stupid, old, ungrateful bint'.
Anyway, it's because I'm tired - staying up til this hour (1am ish) and having to get up at 9:30 and 8:30 respectively. Tomorrow I've got no such commitment, except for having to write a literature essay...oh.
Still, the initial part of 2006 was great - at a pub for New Year's Eve with friends from college and - bizarrely - my parents who happened to be there with their friends. I don't remember 3 and a half hour worth of drinking, nor why it took me two hours to walk home. Still, I enjoyed New Year's celebrations as I predicted I would in my previous post; much more than Christmas Day.
I ranted then about consumerism, and today we were selling chocolate eggs. Christmas Day, with 3 months of expectation behind it, was only 8 DAYS ago and now it's all about Easter eggs! Admittedly, the big ones are not on sale yet, but all the mini-eggs and truffle eggs and extra eggs that rake in the money for Cadbury's and Nestle etc are out in force already. You can see how very easily, and very quickly, two religious based holidays have become distorted and twisted into universal celebrations of material goods and chocolate, with preceeding sagas, months long, of advertising putting out the message of nothing at all, except to make people not think about what the adverts are asking them to do, and just doing it. Certainly, no one is thinking of the reasons why these dates in December and April are noteworthy in the first place - indeed, I put April as a month because even now, as I criticise, I don't know the exact dates that are important when it comes to Easter.
That said, I LOVE Creme Eggs and I will be buying them from time to time in the next 4 months or so while they're on sale.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The Christmas Post
Nice pun.
It's been a not-very-Christmassy Christmas here. I got a guitar amp - yes, riffage! - and the new FM2006 which I may have to leave at home once I go back to Bournemouth otherwise I expect I'll fail the year. Some general other stuff too which has all been very nice, and I count myself lucky that etc etc.
The trouble with Christmas is you start preparing with the shops - in about September. You spend 3 and a half months building up to one day. And it never quite delivers. Sure you get lots of nice new things, and you have a fantastic lunch which is always the best part of the day. But really, as celebrations go, it's a bit flat. It's just one day for crying out loud.
This is of course from an aethiest's point of view. I have nothing to celebrate on the 25th of December, it just marks a point where I can give and receive presents with the people I want to do this with the most, so why should I start thinking about it so far beforehand? (Answer: because capitalism wants to make as much money from the 'event' of Christmas as possible). As an actual date, an event, New Year's Eve is much, much more significant. There's something far more finite, about the end of one year, and the start of a new one: looking back and being able to file away, if you like, the events of one year, and to contemplate and look forward to the new.
This may all seem a touch pessimistic, but this year I started to see a futility in it all. All the effort - even in little things like rolls and rolls of wrapping paper, hundreds of cards - for one day. Maybe next year, I'm going to say to people: "don't buy me anything, buy something for yourself" and I'll do the same. Instead of everyone spending their money on everyone else, no one spend it on anyone but themselves. The result? You probably save money, unless you go crazy, and get all the stuff you want for Christmas!
And anyway - next time I shopping, I'm off to the sales to pick up what I didn't get for Christmas. They started Boxing Day! So people spend 3 months or so buying buying buying for christmas, have a day off and then start again looking for that must-have bargain.
Perhaps that's what the 25th of December marks. The one day a year that consumers have off.
It's been a not-very-Christmassy Christmas here. I got a guitar amp - yes, riffage! - and the new FM2006 which I may have to leave at home once I go back to Bournemouth otherwise I expect I'll fail the year. Some general other stuff too which has all been very nice, and I count myself lucky that etc etc.
The trouble with Christmas is you start preparing with the shops - in about September. You spend 3 and a half months building up to one day. And it never quite delivers. Sure you get lots of nice new things, and you have a fantastic lunch which is always the best part of the day. But really, as celebrations go, it's a bit flat. It's just one day for crying out loud.
This is of course from an aethiest's point of view. I have nothing to celebrate on the 25th of December, it just marks a point where I can give and receive presents with the people I want to do this with the most, so why should I start thinking about it so far beforehand? (Answer: because capitalism wants to make as much money from the 'event' of Christmas as possible). As an actual date, an event, New Year's Eve is much, much more significant. There's something far more finite, about the end of one year, and the start of a new one: looking back and being able to file away, if you like, the events of one year, and to contemplate and look forward to the new.
This may all seem a touch pessimistic, but this year I started to see a futility in it all. All the effort - even in little things like rolls and rolls of wrapping paper, hundreds of cards - for one day. Maybe next year, I'm going to say to people: "don't buy me anything, buy something for yourself" and I'll do the same. Instead of everyone spending their money on everyone else, no one spend it on anyone but themselves. The result? You probably save money, unless you go crazy, and get all the stuff you want for Christmas!
And anyway - next time I shopping, I'm off to the sales to pick up what I didn't get for Christmas. They started Boxing Day! So people spend 3 months or so buying buying buying for christmas, have a day off and then start again looking for that must-have bargain.
Perhaps that's what the 25th of December marks. The one day a year that consumers have off.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Music For Africa project
In a backstreet in Hove, Brighton's bastard sister, on a freezing cold night in bleak mid-December, in the cellar of an unassuming cafe that looks like any of the hundreds of small cafes in Brighton and Hove, I had the priviledge to be present to an evening of musical brilliance in the name of charity. The place (it is a cellar after all) holds about 40 people, but the 40 that were there were in for a bit of a treat.
MusicforAfrica is a project set up by Dani Wilde, one of the performers during the evening, to raise money to provide a primary school in Kenya with the resources to teach the kids there musical education for one year. One school, one country, one year. It's not much - in fact in terms of the recent WTO talks it's barely a grain of wheat in the sack, but it's a start, it's something, and what's good is that it happened. Dani recruited 4 other musical friends, and put on a charity concert, simultaneously selling a Music for Africa EP - every penny made to go to the cause.
The peformers were Dani Wilde herself, a phenomenally talented singer who would walk a 'talent' competition like The X Factor; but in hindsight it would be a waste of such a voice. Al Brown, another fantastic singer in the mould of jazz legend Ella Fitzgerald, managed to overcome a middle-aged drunk woman, possibly a hobo, trying to match her note for note during 'I Just Wanna Make Love To You'. Phil Bentley, who was the first act supported by a cellist called Sarah, opened the night with a set of gentle piano songs sung in an even gentler voice, akin to James Blunt but much more listenable. Sarah-Louise Boyle, who can't have been a day over 18, was absolutley gorgeous ;) and sang her own songs with lyrics and musicality that belied her years. And finally, Roger Davies, Yorkshire man born and bred (that's a fact), finished the night with his brilliant songs, gently-comic lyrics accompanied by warm acoustic guitar playing.
The night finished with the whole reason I was lucky to be there - Roger closed with a song penned by a certain Dad, called 'Bushfire'. (The song is called Bushfire, not my Dad). He also helped put together the CD for Dani - and last night (19th) it all came to fruit in a great night of pure relaxed entertainment that didn't take itself to seriously, and the benefits were all for charity.
Buy the CD.
www.musicforafrica.moonfruit.com
MusicforAfrica is a project set up by Dani Wilde, one of the performers during the evening, to raise money to provide a primary school in Kenya with the resources to teach the kids there musical education for one year. One school, one country, one year. It's not much - in fact in terms of the recent WTO talks it's barely a grain of wheat in the sack, but it's a start, it's something, and what's good is that it happened. Dani recruited 4 other musical friends, and put on a charity concert, simultaneously selling a Music for Africa EP - every penny made to go to the cause.
The peformers were Dani Wilde herself, a phenomenally talented singer who would walk a 'talent' competition like The X Factor; but in hindsight it would be a waste of such a voice. Al Brown, another fantastic singer in the mould of jazz legend Ella Fitzgerald, managed to overcome a middle-aged drunk woman, possibly a hobo, trying to match her note for note during 'I Just Wanna Make Love To You'. Phil Bentley, who was the first act supported by a cellist called Sarah, opened the night with a set of gentle piano songs sung in an even gentler voice, akin to James Blunt but much more listenable. Sarah-Louise Boyle, who can't have been a day over 18, was absolutley gorgeous ;) and sang her own songs with lyrics and musicality that belied her years. And finally, Roger Davies, Yorkshire man born and bred (that's a fact), finished the night with his brilliant songs, gently-comic lyrics accompanied by warm acoustic guitar playing.
The night finished with the whole reason I was lucky to be there - Roger closed with a song penned by a certain Dad, called 'Bushfire'. (The song is called Bushfire, not my Dad). He also helped put together the CD for Dani - and last night (19th) it all came to fruit in a great night of pure relaxed entertainment that didn't take itself to seriously, and the benefits were all for charity.
Buy the CD.
www.musicforafrica.moonfruit.com
Saturday, December 17, 2005
"Goodnight and goodbye..."
On thursday, for the last time, Trevor McDonald closed the 10:30 ITV news and so ended his association with it. The one respected face on ITV1 will not be disappearing from our screens, or even ITV, but will no longer be presenting the news - which is a shame since ITV's news has always tended to be a bit sensationalist, aiming at the News of the World reader first. It's hard to say whether it's been a case of McDonald bringing the channel up, or the channel dragging McDonald down.
In his stupidly short interview about his retirement (I suppose the BBC didn't want to give him that much coverage - they didn't even say when his last broadcast as newsreader would be) he mentioned a few points about how television news is still vital, important to people today as ever before. McDonald is obviously a person to listen to and has the knowledge to know what he's talking about when it comes to news and media, and it will be interesting to see what he does next after getting to air his own views on the industry he has worked in for so long, in his last moments in it.
In his stupidly short interview about his retirement (I suppose the BBC didn't want to give him that much coverage - they didn't even say when his last broadcast as newsreader would be) he mentioned a few points about how television news is still vital, important to people today as ever before. McDonald is obviously a person to listen to and has the knowledge to know what he's talking about when it comes to news and media, and it will be interesting to see what he does next after getting to air his own views on the industry he has worked in for so long, in his last moments in it.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Sports comment
So Harry Redknapp, 'Judas' to Portsmouth fans a year ago, has done a U-turn down the M27 and gone back to Pompey, where the fans hope he'll turn into Jesus and rescue them from their thus far shit season and impending relgation.
It was quite clear last Saturday (3rd) that Harry Redknapp has never given much of a damn for Southampton FC. Usually so clever in the transfer window, he did nothing for us - Ricardo Fuller? you can go back to Fratton Park as well. And our indifferent form in a League populated by clubs so much poorer than us isn't deserving of him leaving us in the lurch - we should have sacked him. Oh well. We've got Theo Walcott!
On the England world cup group: Paraguay, Sweden and Trinidad/Tobago. We've got to be looking at 7 points there, really 9 since we're the "2nd best team in the world". We'll probably play Germany in the knockout round, and it will be a case of reproducing THAT 5-1 win vs home nation form. Then it's (probably) Argies in the 1/4 finals, Brazil in the semis, then regardless of who in the Final, if we make it that far, by God we deserve to win the damn thing.
It was quite clear last Saturday (3rd) that Harry Redknapp has never given much of a damn for Southampton FC. Usually so clever in the transfer window, he did nothing for us - Ricardo Fuller? you can go back to Fratton Park as well. And our indifferent form in a League populated by clubs so much poorer than us isn't deserving of him leaving us in the lurch - we should have sacked him. Oh well. We've got Theo Walcott!
On the England world cup group: Paraguay, Sweden and Trinidad/Tobago. We've got to be looking at 7 points there, really 9 since we're the "2nd best team in the world". We'll probably play Germany in the knockout round, and it will be a case of reproducing THAT 5-1 win vs home nation form. Then it's (probably) Argies in the 1/4 finals, Brazil in the semis, then regardless of who in the Final, if we make it that far, by God we deserve to win the damn thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)