Since Christmas, we have lost two giants of music - Lemmy and Bowie. There has been an interesting meme on Facebook with the title "This is what you get when you pay for music" with pictures of Lemmy and Bowie, and "This is what you get when you don't pay" with pictures of One Direction and Ed Sheeran.
Actually, I have to admit, I quite like some of Ed Sheeran's work. But the point is made.
One of the problems with shows like X-Factor, and The Voice are that they focus on commercial success. I am not one to dismiss commercial success as such, but these days, commercial success is the antithesis of musical freedom and creativity. One of the best x-factor winners - in terms of her vocal ability - was Alexandria Burke. I watched that series, and I loved her voice, but in all of the music that I have heard her record since, there has been nothing of that talent shown. Yes, she has had success, but at the cost of her musical integrity. That is a sad loss. there are suggestions that last years winner, Lousia Johnson has some talent as well, but she is unlikely to do well from being involved. Especially as she failed to get the Christmas Number One. If Simon Cowell cares about anything, it is success, and she has failed to provide him with what he wants.
I remember when Steve Brookstein had won the first x-Factor, which was a surprise, and the following year he made a comment that "at last I am free of the contract". I was as cynical as most others, that he was apparently "glad" to be free of a £1M contract, the largest that he will probably ever get. Today, I think he may have had a point - having a binding contract to produce Cowell-Musak is only the dream of people who can sing, not of singers.
When I was younger, in the 1970s/80s, most bands would produce records to sell and make money. That was how they made money, and to do this, they needed a recording contract. There were all sorts of record labels - the independents - who would pick up bands they felt had something and would produce their music for them. Bands would go on tour to promote their record sales, and would often make a loss on the tour, which would be made up for by increased sales.
All of that has changed - partly for the better, but partly for the worse. Today, getting your music out there is so much easier, with the internet, BandCamp, YouTube and suchlike. However, nobody can make a living making music and selling it any more. The downside is that it is no longer the music that is so important. Musicians can only make money by touring and performing, which means that it is no longer the music that is so crucial as the "performance".
Now Bowie, in particular, was a performer maybe over anything else. However, I don't think Cowell and his like would embrace that style of performance. It is not just Cowell, it is the majority of the music industry, and Cowell is the public face of this. It is a particular style and form of performance that is expected and needed. I listen to Heart radio on my commute - mainly for the traffic news. I used to listen to Vibe, another local station, with (possibly) better traffic news. The problem is that both of them play a lot of Cowell-Musak, and it is very hard to tell them apart. When you look at them, they all look identical (Maybe the numbers or the hair are different, that is about all). This is the music that makes money, so if you want to make money in the music business, this is what you have to produce.
As I am writing this, I am listening to a BBC documentary on Bowie, and they have got to the Heroes section. This song - maybe my favourite Bowie song - combines him with Brian Eno and Robert Fripp, two other musical geniuses. I don't think, in the current musical environment, any of these would be able to find a start or a role in the music business.
That is my problem with the era of "what you get when you don't pay". It will continue to give you what you had last time. Because of this, radical new talent that doesn't fit into the accepted commercial categories has a far more difficult time to get attention and any degree of "success". While success is not the be all of music, if you can't make something out of it, musicians will stop producing.
We will never see another David Bowie or Lemmie. Not least, this is because people that different would never get a way into the business. In truth, this is the real sadness of the Cowell influence in the music industry. He has destroyed the real creativity in it. That is why the genius of Bowie will not be seen in that business again. Today, such people have to find a new outlet.
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 January 2016
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Why radio is important
I was listening to the radio the other day, and the presenter made an interesting comment about why radio is still important in a world where we have access to all the music, all the time.
The point is, a radio show is someone else choosing some music for you. A lot of it may be stuff you know and hear a lot, but, ideally, some of it will be new material or artists that you might not think of listening to unless they had been played to you. Kate Tempest is one recent example, who is a poet, but who performs some of her material to music (so, songs really). I love her material, but I would never have naturally come across it.
There is also music that you may know about, but have forgotten, or not heard in a long time. This is always special, and was the focus of the initial comment - they played Hocus Pocus by Focus, the full version. I - and most of the listeners - knew the song, but I had not heard it for ages. It was a great revelation to hear it again - and I don't know if I have ever heard the full version of it. That is why radio is important.
Of course, services like Pandora can also help select music for you, but this is an automated process. I did use it many years ago, and I think it was superb in what it did - it introduced me to the band Ozma, who do some fantastic material. Spotify, which I use at the moment, also has recommendations if you want to use that. But these services can tend to limit your music to "similar to what you already listen to". Great in its way, but I want "Stuff I might like, that is completely left-field".
It is through listening to the radio that I have found bands like Sunn O and Opeth, Alvvays and Kate Tempest. None of these really match what I would identify as what I listen to - they are different, enjoyable, and opening my experience of music even wider. It is also through listening to the radio that I realised how brilliant Gary Numan's "Are Friends Electric" actually is, for example - music that I am aware of, but have not heard for a long time.
There is another reason that radio still rules. I am working from home at the moment. It can get very lonely and isolated at home. Having the radio on helps me to feel that I might not be completely alone, and being able to interact using twitter, for example, helps me feel that I am still connected to others. I have had a few tweets read out, and been on The Chain too, so I have engaged with the show. that is something that is not possible when just listening to music.
So, whatever happens in the world of music download and listening, I am convinced that music radio still has an important part to play. Long live 6 music!
The point is, a radio show is someone else choosing some music for you. A lot of it may be stuff you know and hear a lot, but, ideally, some of it will be new material or artists that you might not think of listening to unless they had been played to you. Kate Tempest is one recent example, who is a poet, but who performs some of her material to music (so, songs really). I love her material, but I would never have naturally come across it.
There is also music that you may know about, but have forgotten, or not heard in a long time. This is always special, and was the focus of the initial comment - they played Hocus Pocus by Focus, the full version. I - and most of the listeners - knew the song, but I had not heard it for ages. It was a great revelation to hear it again - and I don't know if I have ever heard the full version of it. That is why radio is important.
Of course, services like Pandora can also help select music for you, but this is an automated process. I did use it many years ago, and I think it was superb in what it did - it introduced me to the band Ozma, who do some fantastic material. Spotify, which I use at the moment, also has recommendations if you want to use that. But these services can tend to limit your music to "similar to what you already listen to". Great in its way, but I want "Stuff I might like, that is completely left-field".
It is through listening to the radio that I have found bands like Sunn O and Opeth, Alvvays and Kate Tempest. None of these really match what I would identify as what I listen to - they are different, enjoyable, and opening my experience of music even wider. It is also through listening to the radio that I realised how brilliant Gary Numan's "Are Friends Electric" actually is, for example - music that I am aware of, but have not heard for a long time.
There is another reason that radio still rules. I am working from home at the moment. It can get very lonely and isolated at home. Having the radio on helps me to feel that I might not be completely alone, and being able to interact using twitter, for example, helps me feel that I am still connected to others. I have had a few tweets read out, and been on The Chain too, so I have engaged with the show. that is something that is not possible when just listening to music.
So, whatever happens in the world of music download and listening, I am convinced that music radio still has an important part to play. Long live 6 music!
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
A paean to Mary Ann Hobbs
As some of you may know, I am a huge fan of Mary Ann Hobbs who is a presenter on BBC 6 music, and who is, in my opinion, the best radio presenter across any of the stations. There are two reasons for this, primarily.
Firstly, she has a perfect radio voice - smooth and silky, listening to her is like been hugged, and have her talk to you personally, individually. What is more, she never gets flustered, or at least, it never shows. Actually, I first saw her at Sonar last year, where she did get flustered because her headphones broke, but on air, she never shows any signs of being disturbed. She is a really calming voice on the radio.
But the real reason that she is always worth listening to is that her selection and range of music is quite astounding.She is probably the only person who could get away with playing Sonn 0)) on generalist, national radio. However, she also played, in the same show, near-classical piano pieces, and fairly well-know commercial music.
It was most interesting to hear her on Radio 3 - where she used her style, her knowledge, her understanding of music within a very different style and form of music. Even though I may not listen to radio 3 for anything else, she was superb in the first episode, and will, I am sure, be also superb in the second. It is all relevant, whatever your style of music, because it is all music, some of which is good, some of which is not.
The thing is, so many people have such a limited range of music - church people are probably the worst. This is the Pandora approach to music - the make-it-yourself radio site, where you entered your favorite song (or a typical or enjoyable piece), and the system would select other pieces that were similar in style and sound. Then you could mark up or down the tunes based on whether they had picked up on the right aspects of your selection, meaning that you could tailor your music selection to be just right. You could narrow down the selection to be just what you like.
The problem is that you can end up with very bland, very samey music.This is the process that seems to affect most churches with musical selection - the most vocal people vote up or down, and you end up with the bland, the inoffensive, effectively one sound repeated endlessly.
Mary Ann does not suffer from this. I might not like every piece played, but that is fine - someone does. And it will change again, and something I really relate to will probably be on next. She also treats each piece with huge respect - it is not about music being the chance to relax between the important talkie bits. The music is the crucial pieces, and the talking, the introductions are about helping people to appreciate the selection better. She does not just pick the most well known version of song - she constantly amazes me by knowing a John Peel session version of a piece that is different and (often) better than the well known version. It is a careful selection, done with passion and belief, and presented with excitement and care. It shows huge respect for both the music and the listeners.
The respect for her listeners is also shown in that she never patronises us. There is an assumption that we will know all of the musicians and groups that she talks about (or that we can go and find out). She never explains stuff that is easy to find out, or that we should know. She does explain stuff that is not easy or obvious. So I, as a listener, feel respected.
In the end, that is what I appreciate about her shows. She cares about the music, and she cares about her listeners, but expects them to appreciate the selections. She demands, calmly, that you listen, and try to appreciate - that you have an open mind, appreciate the music for what it is.
Much of my experience of church music, on the contrary, is of people who want a good sing-along session, with little appreciation of music for itself, little open-mindedness about styles. It is sad, to me, that so many musicians give so much for so little appreciation.
So on Sunday mornings, I prefer Mary Ann, and her musical appreciation.
Firstly, she has a perfect radio voice - smooth and silky, listening to her is like been hugged, and have her talk to you personally, individually. What is more, she never gets flustered, or at least, it never shows. Actually, I first saw her at Sonar last year, where she did get flustered because her headphones broke, but on air, she never shows any signs of being disturbed. She is a really calming voice on the radio.
But the real reason that she is always worth listening to is that her selection and range of music is quite astounding.She is probably the only person who could get away with playing Sonn 0)) on generalist, national radio. However, she also played, in the same show, near-classical piano pieces, and fairly well-know commercial music.
It was most interesting to hear her on Radio 3 - where she used her style, her knowledge, her understanding of music within a very different style and form of music. Even though I may not listen to radio 3 for anything else, she was superb in the first episode, and will, I am sure, be also superb in the second. It is all relevant, whatever your style of music, because it is all music, some of which is good, some of which is not.
The thing is, so many people have such a limited range of music - church people are probably the worst. This is the Pandora approach to music - the make-it-yourself radio site, where you entered your favorite song (or a typical or enjoyable piece), and the system would select other pieces that were similar in style and sound. Then you could mark up or down the tunes based on whether they had picked up on the right aspects of your selection, meaning that you could tailor your music selection to be just right. You could narrow down the selection to be just what you like.
The problem is that you can end up with very bland, very samey music.This is the process that seems to affect most churches with musical selection - the most vocal people vote up or down, and you end up with the bland, the inoffensive, effectively one sound repeated endlessly.
Mary Ann does not suffer from this. I might not like every piece played, but that is fine - someone does. And it will change again, and something I really relate to will probably be on next. She also treats each piece with huge respect - it is not about music being the chance to relax between the important talkie bits. The music is the crucial pieces, and the talking, the introductions are about helping people to appreciate the selection better. She does not just pick the most well known version of song - she constantly amazes me by knowing a John Peel session version of a piece that is different and (often) better than the well known version. It is a careful selection, done with passion and belief, and presented with excitement and care. It shows huge respect for both the music and the listeners.
The respect for her listeners is also shown in that she never patronises us. There is an assumption that we will know all of the musicians and groups that she talks about (or that we can go and find out). She never explains stuff that is easy to find out, or that we should know. She does explain stuff that is not easy or obvious. So I, as a listener, feel respected.
In the end, that is what I appreciate about her shows. She cares about the music, and she cares about her listeners, but expects them to appreciate the selections. She demands, calmly, that you listen, and try to appreciate - that you have an open mind, appreciate the music for what it is.
Much of my experience of church music, on the contrary, is of people who want a good sing-along session, with little appreciation of music for itself, little open-mindedness about styles. It is sad, to me, that so many musicians give so much for so little appreciation.
So on Sunday mornings, I prefer Mary Ann, and her musical appreciation.
Friday, 1 August 2014
Drone Metal
I have recently - and with thanks to @MaryAnneHobbs - discovered and enjoyed a style of music known as drone metal, epitomised by a group called Sunn 0))) - pronounced sun - when she played a piece of theirs on 6 music.
I suspect that this may be the first time they have been played on a national radio station, or at least one with anything like the BBC. They are, I think it is fair to say, a niche market in terms of listeners. There are others who also play drone metal like Earth, but none who take it to the purest form.
The music is defined very well by the title. There are two aspects: firstly, drone, because most of it consists of very long notes and chords played through distortion which helps to prolong the sound; secondly metal, because it is played loud. Very loud.
Having looked around the internet a little to find out about this style, there are two comments that constantly come up. People say "This isn't music" and then they say "They are not musicians", so I want to address both of these, not least because so many of the criticisms are common ones from people who don't like a particular style of music - and there are similar comments from church groups as to why certain music is "satanic" or at least not suitable for church.
I should point out that I am not arguing that drone metal is suitable for church. But this is not because it is "wrong" or "demonic", it is because there are probably only a few thousand people in the world who actually like and appreciate this style of music, and so imposing it on others would be wrong. It is an acquired taste, and not everyone wants to acquire it. If you do want to see them performing live, and get some idea of their musical style, you can watch them here.
1. This isn't music. I suppose it depends on how you define music, doesn't it? It doesn't have melody, or rhythm, which makes it harder to engage with. Having said that, it does have rhythm, just not a solid beat to it, so not a standard idea of rhythm.
But then we do listen to music with odd rhythmic structures at times - from Pink Floyd's Money to Dave Brubeck and Take Five, we accept some peculiar time signatures in our music, if the musicians can play it (these two pieces are in 7/8 and 5/4 time respectively, which are not the usual time signatures of 3/4 and 4/4). What is more, some performers like Bjork can produce pieces with the most peculiar rhythms (she seems to favour 17/8, according to wikipedia), but they are quite listenable to.
Having said that, most of the music we listen to is rhythmic, to an extent. But it doesn't need to be. Sonn 0))) produce "sonic landscapes" - which means they use their instruments to produce something different, something that invites - or insists - that you engage with it. It isn't for everyone, but if you don't like it, listen to something else.
There are also few words -where there are spoken pieces, they are part of the sonic landscape, not the song. There is a lot of focus on "words" being so important (yes, especially by church people), but in truth, that is so disparaging to the music. The words, and the singer, are not the only or most important part of songs or music. Where there are words, they are part of it, but the music is also crucial.
Music - most of it, at least, and that part that is not produced by the Cowell Money Factory - is artistry. If you don't like Jackson Pollack, that is your opinion, but you cannot say that it isn't art. Your style might be more Thomas Kinkade, which personally makes me puke, but it is art. I guess - it fails utterly to challenge me, which is what I expect art to do.
So you may not like drone metal music, but that doesn't mean you can condemn it as not being music. I don't like Hillsongs-style worship music, but I accept that it is music.
2. They are not musicians. Well watching them, it would appear that they do not need a huge amount of skill on their instruments to produce their music.
Which assumes that most of the skill in playing comes from technique on an instrument, which is doubtful. Many songs have been produced with musically very simple structures, that are not complex to master on any instrument. However to make them something else requires more than just being able to play the notes or chords - it involves being able to perform the music, to bring something of yourself into it, and to make the piece as a whole into something that is more than the sum of the parts.
I can point you to all sorts of musicians that I enjoy who are masters of their instruments, who have a technical skill level way beyond mine. But that is not why I like them - I enjoy them because I like the sounds they make. It does take a set of skills to produce sounds that I like - or sounds that are engaging.
I might try to produce and record some drone metal. This is not because I think it requires a limited musical ability, but because I believe that I have some musical talent, and I probably have the equipment to put something together. I have no idea how it will go, but it will be an interesting challenge for me!
We can be very snobby about music. For some people, it has to be of the absolute highest technical excellence possible. For others, it has to have positive words (and not engage the emotions at all). For me, music works best when it engages the emotions, irrespective of other things. But then I like Pollack and I hate Kinkade, so what do I know?
I suspect that this may be the first time they have been played on a national radio station, or at least one with anything like the BBC. They are, I think it is fair to say, a niche market in terms of listeners. There are others who also play drone metal like Earth, but none who take it to the purest form.
The music is defined very well by the title. There are two aspects: firstly, drone, because most of it consists of very long notes and chords played through distortion which helps to prolong the sound; secondly metal, because it is played loud. Very loud.
Having looked around the internet a little to find out about this style, there are two comments that constantly come up. People say "This isn't music" and then they say "They are not musicians", so I want to address both of these, not least because so many of the criticisms are common ones from people who don't like a particular style of music - and there are similar comments from church groups as to why certain music is "satanic" or at least not suitable for church.
I should point out that I am not arguing that drone metal is suitable for church. But this is not because it is "wrong" or "demonic", it is because there are probably only a few thousand people in the world who actually like and appreciate this style of music, and so imposing it on others would be wrong. It is an acquired taste, and not everyone wants to acquire it. If you do want to see them performing live, and get some idea of their musical style, you can watch them here.
1. This isn't music. I suppose it depends on how you define music, doesn't it? It doesn't have melody, or rhythm, which makes it harder to engage with. Having said that, it does have rhythm, just not a solid beat to it, so not a standard idea of rhythm.
But then we do listen to music with odd rhythmic structures at times - from Pink Floyd's Money to Dave Brubeck and Take Five, we accept some peculiar time signatures in our music, if the musicians can play it (these two pieces are in 7/8 and 5/4 time respectively, which are not the usual time signatures of 3/4 and 4/4). What is more, some performers like Bjork can produce pieces with the most peculiar rhythms (she seems to favour 17/8, according to wikipedia), but they are quite listenable to.
Having said that, most of the music we listen to is rhythmic, to an extent. But it doesn't need to be. Sonn 0))) produce "sonic landscapes" - which means they use their instruments to produce something different, something that invites - or insists - that you engage with it. It isn't for everyone, but if you don't like it, listen to something else.
There are also few words -where there are spoken pieces, they are part of the sonic landscape, not the song. There is a lot of focus on "words" being so important (yes, especially by church people), but in truth, that is so disparaging to the music. The words, and the singer, are not the only or most important part of songs or music. Where there are words, they are part of it, but the music is also crucial.
Music - most of it, at least, and that part that is not produced by the Cowell Money Factory - is artistry. If you don't like Jackson Pollack, that is your opinion, but you cannot say that it isn't art. Your style might be more Thomas Kinkade, which personally makes me puke, but it is art. I guess - it fails utterly to challenge me, which is what I expect art to do.
So you may not like drone metal music, but that doesn't mean you can condemn it as not being music. I don't like Hillsongs-style worship music, but I accept that it is music.
2. They are not musicians. Well watching them, it would appear that they do not need a huge amount of skill on their instruments to produce their music.
Which assumes that most of the skill in playing comes from technique on an instrument, which is doubtful. Many songs have been produced with musically very simple structures, that are not complex to master on any instrument. However to make them something else requires more than just being able to play the notes or chords - it involves being able to perform the music, to bring something of yourself into it, and to make the piece as a whole into something that is more than the sum of the parts.
I can point you to all sorts of musicians that I enjoy who are masters of their instruments, who have a technical skill level way beyond mine. But that is not why I like them - I enjoy them because I like the sounds they make. It does take a set of skills to produce sounds that I like - or sounds that are engaging.
I might try to produce and record some drone metal. This is not because I think it requires a limited musical ability, but because I believe that I have some musical talent, and I probably have the equipment to put something together. I have no idea how it will go, but it will be an interesting challenge for me!
We can be very snobby about music. For some people, it has to be of the absolute highest technical excellence possible. For others, it has to have positive words (and not engage the emotions at all). For me, music works best when it engages the emotions, irrespective of other things. But then I like Pollack and I hate Kinkade, so what do I know?
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Grace Petrie
One of my highlights and new discoveries at Greenbelt this year was the singer Grace Petrie. Her performance was excellent, and really enjoyable. But there was another reason why I was impressed.
She is a protest singer, in the style of Billy Bragg and the like. Well actually, there is no real "the like", which is the problem. We do not have any real political protest singers today, who are well known enough to get played and so get their message out to many people. Grace is not quite there yet, but nearly, having had some exposure on BBC 6 Music. Her message is one that we all need to hear, because music - like comedy - is a good way to spread a message.
On my first evening at Greenbelt, I spoke to a couple of people and one question came up which was "why are there no controversial political speakers at Greenbelt? Which there were not really, although there have been in the past. As we discussed, one of the problems is finding the people who are making spiritual political statements - and there are none. After that discussion, it was good to hear that there are those making their political mark - and those who are prepared to appear at a spiritual gathering like Greenbelt.
She is an engaging person, someone who is clearly passionate about what she says and does. She also does love songs, but not lovely sweet ones, of course. She has her head screwed on, is not an idealist, which makes her protest songs even better, because they are not dreaming of a supposed ideal - she is quite realistic about life. But she is angry and hurt, and that comes over in her music.
Anyway - that is enough - check her out, listen to her, go and see her, support her, partly because we need her voice in this country, but also because she is good, entertaining and fun.
She is a protest singer, in the style of Billy Bragg and the like. Well actually, there is no real "the like", which is the problem. We do not have any real political protest singers today, who are well known enough to get played and so get their message out to many people. Grace is not quite there yet, but nearly, having had some exposure on BBC 6 Music. Her message is one that we all need to hear, because music - like comedy - is a good way to spread a message.
On my first evening at Greenbelt, I spoke to a couple of people and one question came up which was "why are there no controversial political speakers at Greenbelt? Which there were not really, although there have been in the past. As we discussed, one of the problems is finding the people who are making spiritual political statements - and there are none. After that discussion, it was good to hear that there are those making their political mark - and those who are prepared to appear at a spiritual gathering like Greenbelt.
She is an engaging person, someone who is clearly passionate about what she says and does. She also does love songs, but not lovely sweet ones, of course. She has her head screwed on, is not an idealist, which makes her protest songs even better, because they are not dreaming of a supposed ideal - she is quite realistic about life. But she is angry and hurt, and that comes over in her music.
Anyway - that is enough - check her out, listen to her, go and see her, support her, partly because we need her voice in this country, but also because she is good, entertaining and fun.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
A musical Easter meditation
This is a piece of music that I have written and recorded. It is not brilliant, but gives a sense of what I am after, as an Easter meditation. It is all recorded by me on my guitar.
Waiting for GPS
For an explanation, the chaos and crowds of Good Friday is finished by the sound of the nails being hammered in. Then we have the rather dead and waiting time of Easter Saturday, when there was a pause in history.
The piece is concluded by a celebration of Easter Sunday resurrection.
Enjoy.
Waiting for GPS
For an explanation, the chaos and crowds of Good Friday is finished by the sound of the nails being hammered in. Then we have the rather dead and waiting time of Easter Saturday, when there was a pause in history.
The piece is concluded by a celebration of Easter Sunday resurrection.
Enjoy.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Do anything you want to do
Why don't you ask them what they expect from you ?
Why don't you tell them what you're gonna do
You get so lonely, maybe it's better that way
It ain't you only, you got something to say
Do anything you wanna do
Do anything you wanna do
This is the chorus of "Do anything you want to do" by Eddie and the Hot Rods. They were a one hit wonder, but it is a spectacular hit. It is an earworm too - once you hear it, you will struggle to get it out of your head. The title seems to indicate it is a rebel song, and it is, but I think there is more to it that this. I want to give it some analysis from where I stand.
Why don't you ask then what they expect from you? Good question. Why not challenge the establishment, the church, the systems and structures that you are in, ask then what they expect, what their demands are. Not least because you can be sure that they will actually be demanding more than they admit to.
Why don't you tell them what you are going to do? This is, in my experience, the place of freedom - when you start to define and state what your faith actually means. It is often a point of freedom just trying to work out what you are going to do, never mind actually telling your church or whatever how you intend to live your faith out. It is the point when you decide to make your faith your own, and not just what others tell you it should be.
You get so lonely, maybe its better that way. Well living your faith outside the church can be very lonely. It may be that this is the only way that it can be - that being apart from the church community is the better way. But it is lonely, and there can be a lot of rejection. Maybe its better, but it is not easier.
It ain't you only - you've got something to say. You are not alone. The truth is, however you feel, however you want to explore and pursue your faith, there are others who can help you. What is more, you do have something to say - to the church, to others, to the world at large. Never give up.
Do anything you want to do. This is not a call to faith anarchy. It is a call to follow your faith wherever it leads you - into church, out of church, wherever. And enjoy the journey. As they say in the verse "I know I must be someone, now I'm going to find out who". That is our life mission.
And after all of that analysis, it is still a good fun punk rebel song. Worth a listen whatever.
Why don't you tell them what you're gonna do
You get so lonely, maybe it's better that way
It ain't you only, you got something to say
Do anything you wanna do
Do anything you wanna do
This is the chorus of "Do anything you want to do" by Eddie and the Hot Rods. They were a one hit wonder, but it is a spectacular hit. It is an earworm too - once you hear it, you will struggle to get it out of your head. The title seems to indicate it is a rebel song, and it is, but I think there is more to it that this. I want to give it some analysis from where I stand.
Why don't you ask then what they expect from you? Good question. Why not challenge the establishment, the church, the systems and structures that you are in, ask then what they expect, what their demands are. Not least because you can be sure that they will actually be demanding more than they admit to.
Why don't you tell them what you are going to do? This is, in my experience, the place of freedom - when you start to define and state what your faith actually means. It is often a point of freedom just trying to work out what you are going to do, never mind actually telling your church or whatever how you intend to live your faith out. It is the point when you decide to make your faith your own, and not just what others tell you it should be.
You get so lonely, maybe its better that way. Well living your faith outside the church can be very lonely. It may be that this is the only way that it can be - that being apart from the church community is the better way. But it is lonely, and there can be a lot of rejection. Maybe its better, but it is not easier.
It ain't you only - you've got something to say. You are not alone. The truth is, however you feel, however you want to explore and pursue your faith, there are others who can help you. What is more, you do have something to say - to the church, to others, to the world at large. Never give up.
Do anything you want to do. This is not a call to faith anarchy. It is a call to follow your faith wherever it leads you - into church, out of church, wherever. And enjoy the journey. As they say in the verse "I know I must be someone, now I'm going to find out who". That is our life mission.
And after all of that analysis, it is still a good fun punk rebel song. Worth a listen whatever.
Saturday, 10 November 2012
We need to talk
"Step one you say we need to talk he walks you say sit down it's just a talk" - Lyrics from "How to save a life" by The Fray. These words "we need to talk" are enough to send a chill down the spine of most men - it is women who say it mostly, although not entirely.
The thing is, different people deal with issues and problems differently. Some people want to talk through the problems, whereas others don't - they appear to want to ignore them. However, this might not be the case - it might be that they don't see a problem, it might be that they are doing what they can to resolve it anyway. Talking it through is not always the best or right way to resolve problems.
I want to consider whether there is a biblical response to trying to resolve disputes or problems between people. The first place that most people refer to is "do not let the sun go down on your anger" - taken as a reasonable injunction to deal with things immediately. However, there are other issues involved. There is also a sense from the bible that considering others before yourself is important. Maybe we should look at St Paul who says "do not cause your brother to stumble".
There is, I think, a strong indicator towards just not saying anything, not saying anything, and just accepting the problems.
Then there is the bit about "if your brother sins, talk to him". Of course this relates to sin, not relationship problems. In particular, it relates to sins that are impacting the church. There is nothing in this that relates to how to handle someone who annoys you, somebody who doesn't behave as you expect or want.
I may be wrong, but my reading of the biblical approach is that you have to just accept that things are not perfect, and lump it. Change yourself, don't expect others to change. Maybe rant and rage about it in some other environment - not gossiping, just expressing your irritation - but in the end, the Christian way is to deal with it. People are not perfect, and we have to accept and work with them as they are.
I think that if we all did this, it would make life a whole lot easier.
The thing is, different people deal with issues and problems differently. Some people want to talk through the problems, whereas others don't - they appear to want to ignore them. However, this might not be the case - it might be that they don't see a problem, it might be that they are doing what they can to resolve it anyway. Talking it through is not always the best or right way to resolve problems.
I want to consider whether there is a biblical response to trying to resolve disputes or problems between people. The first place that most people refer to is "do not let the sun go down on your anger" - taken as a reasonable injunction to deal with things immediately. However, there are other issues involved. There is also a sense from the bible that considering others before yourself is important. Maybe we should look at St Paul who says "do not cause your brother to stumble".
There is, I think, a strong indicator towards just not saying anything, not saying anything, and just accepting the problems.
Then there is the bit about "if your brother sins, talk to him". Of course this relates to sin, not relationship problems. In particular, it relates to sins that are impacting the church. There is nothing in this that relates to how to handle someone who annoys you, somebody who doesn't behave as you expect or want.
I may be wrong, but my reading of the biblical approach is that you have to just accept that things are not perfect, and lump it. Change yourself, don't expect others to change. Maybe rant and rage about it in some other environment - not gossiping, just expressing your irritation - but in the end, the Christian way is to deal with it. People are not perfect, and we have to accept and work with them as they are.
I think that if we all did this, it would make life a whole lot easier.
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Faith and music
This years Greenbelt had, for me, a strong emphasis on music. I heard 10 or so acts on two stages, and missed catching at least one other. All of the music I heard was excellent, and being right at the front for most of it, I could seriously engage with the performances.
I have realised - again - that I am definately a front-row person. I love being right up there, seeing what is going on, close to the performance. And the volume you get there I love, although I realise that others do not enjoy having their ears blasted like that. But when the bass notes make your clothes vibrate, there is a real sense of being part of the performance.
If I have a criticism, it would be that the musical style was rather "folky", and I would have liked to see the big stage used for rock, at least some of the time. But Seth Lakeman, The Proclaimers, Bellowhead were all quite capable of filling the stage - I have no problems with who we had, just would have liked more or others too. There is a danger that we present Christianity as a folk-liking faith, and miss the fact that the musical range of Christians is as wide as anyone else. It was a great sight to see a metal band on the Canopy stage, and see the reaction of so many people to hearing this - but it is part of the music scene, and some people enjoy this.
However, one performer made an interesting comment, which I thought was right on the mark. Speech Debelle is a rapper, so we had some hip-hop on the main stage. She said that when she was asked, she wasn't sure whether she should come, because she wasn't a Christian. However, she said, the message of some of her songs was relevant - "Live for the Message" for example. I think she had a point, and I am glad she was there.
I have thought for many years that the most challenging and insightful music and lyrics come from artists who do not claim to be Christians. The huge majority of contemporary and worship Christian music seems to be a rehashing of the same ideas, words, emotions. It makes me wonder why we bother producing more and more of it - seriously, why do we have a Christin Music industry, when no-one seems to produce anything different. It is not that I don't appreciate music - I love it, and I play it - but I like to be made to think, not just told how lovely God is.
I have found inspiration from dance music (I still like trance, and there are some great messages in this music often), rock music, rap - pretty much anything I have listened to has somewhere given a new and fresh message. If you want social commentary, spiritual challenge, uplifting or revitalising, I think there is some form of contemporary - and not explicitly Christian - music that does that. And most of it is better than a lot of "Christian" music.
I have realised - again - that I am definately a front-row person. I love being right up there, seeing what is going on, close to the performance. And the volume you get there I love, although I realise that others do not enjoy having their ears blasted like that. But when the bass notes make your clothes vibrate, there is a real sense of being part of the performance.
If I have a criticism, it would be that the musical style was rather "folky", and I would have liked to see the big stage used for rock, at least some of the time. But Seth Lakeman, The Proclaimers, Bellowhead were all quite capable of filling the stage - I have no problems with who we had, just would have liked more or others too. There is a danger that we present Christianity as a folk-liking faith, and miss the fact that the musical range of Christians is as wide as anyone else. It was a great sight to see a metal band on the Canopy stage, and see the reaction of so many people to hearing this - but it is part of the music scene, and some people enjoy this.
However, one performer made an interesting comment, which I thought was right on the mark. Speech Debelle is a rapper, so we had some hip-hop on the main stage. She said that when she was asked, she wasn't sure whether she should come, because she wasn't a Christian. However, she said, the message of some of her songs was relevant - "Live for the Message" for example. I think she had a point, and I am glad she was there.
I have thought for many years that the most challenging and insightful music and lyrics come from artists who do not claim to be Christians. The huge majority of contemporary and worship Christian music seems to be a rehashing of the same ideas, words, emotions. It makes me wonder why we bother producing more and more of it - seriously, why do we have a Christin Music industry, when no-one seems to produce anything different. It is not that I don't appreciate music - I love it, and I play it - but I like to be made to think, not just told how lovely God is.
I have found inspiration from dance music (I still like trance, and there are some great messages in this music often), rock music, rap - pretty much anything I have listened to has somewhere given a new and fresh message. If you want social commentary, spiritual challenge, uplifting or revitalising, I think there is some form of contemporary - and not explicitly Christian - music that does that. And most of it is better than a lot of "Christian" music.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Greenbelt 2012
But it was an excellent time, a fabulous line up and the weather didn't real spoil anything. I will be putting a couple of posts from things I have learnt from the weekend. Other than, just how muddy it can get.
I heard Bruce Cockburn, The Proclaimers, Seth Lakeman, Bellowhead, Speech Debele. That is pretty exceptional, not to mention other acts that I saw around them. I heard Prof John Polkinghorne, Vikky Beeching, Deborah Fielding and Shane Clairbourne, among others. There was not a bad music act, or talk. Some I disagreed with, but that is a positive. I have returned invigorated.
Watch here for more....
Monday, 20 August 2012
Pussy Riot
Seeing as everyone else is blogging about this, I thought I had better too. There are some interesting lessons to be learned from this case. For anyone who has missed it, Pussy Riot are a punk group who were arrested after singing a song calling for Mary, Jesus mother, to get rid of Putin, in an Orthodox church. For this they were arrested, and have now been sentenced to 2 years in jail.
Now others have pointed out, quite rightly, that the charges against Pussy Riot and those against Jesus are remarkably similar. They were both accused of blasphemy and causing outrage. And the religious authorities worked with the secular authorities to gain condemnation and punishment.
However there is another important question that have been asking is what would happen if this had occurred in the UK. Or America, or any other western country? Well I think it is fair to say that if someone were to get up almost any church in the west, and say "Mary Mother of God, bring down Cameron/Obama" then there might be some fuss, but no arrests.
However, look at the Occupy protest at the stock exchange. St Pauls Cathedral didn't really know what to do about them - welcome them, or refuse them? And it became very ugly. So what if someone were to stand up in St Paul and swear and call for the government and the city to be overthrown, they would be arrested. Their fate would be equivalent to the Pussy Riot members.
The truth is that the church in the west is as married to the economic and political system that we are all involved in. The church, which should be standing as a challenge to the society, is instead far too engaged with the society, far to much a part of it to be a real challenge, or to support a challenge.
"But my church doesn't! My church does speak out!" I hear some people claiming. It is not about single churches, single voices. It is a problem that Christianity, as a whole, is too institutionalised. Single voices, which are important, are drowned out by the larger and louder voice that people hear that deny these truths.
No, the truth is that the church and the secular powers in the west are not really that different from the east. The triggers are different, but the attitudes are the same. Sad to say.
Now others have pointed out, quite rightly, that the charges against Pussy Riot and those against Jesus are remarkably similar. They were both accused of blasphemy and causing outrage. And the religious authorities worked with the secular authorities to gain condemnation and punishment.
However there is another important question that have been asking is what would happen if this had occurred in the UK. Or America, or any other western country? Well I think it is fair to say that if someone were to get up almost any church in the west, and say "Mary Mother of God, bring down Cameron/Obama" then there might be some fuss, but no arrests.
However, look at the Occupy protest at the stock exchange. St Pauls Cathedral didn't really know what to do about them - welcome them, or refuse them? And it became very ugly. So what if someone were to stand up in St Paul and swear and call for the government and the city to be overthrown, they would be arrested. Their fate would be equivalent to the Pussy Riot members.
The truth is that the church in the west is as married to the economic and political system that we are all involved in. The church, which should be standing as a challenge to the society, is instead far too engaged with the society, far to much a part of it to be a real challenge, or to support a challenge.
"But my church doesn't! My church does speak out!" I hear some people claiming. It is not about single churches, single voices. It is a problem that Christianity, as a whole, is too institutionalised. Single voices, which are important, are drowned out by the larger and louder voice that people hear that deny these truths.
No, the truth is that the church and the secular powers in the west are not really that different from the east. The triggers are different, but the attitudes are the same. Sad to say.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
The words of the prophets...
... are written on the subway walls, according to Simon and Garfunkel. Now while I agree with the sentiment, I am not sure how "Paul loves Donna" can be translated into a meaningful word for me today. Maybe they had better quality graffitti artists.
In fact, I think the words of the prophets are more likely to be written by the songwriters and musicians today. Not all of them - oddly "I'm a Cheeky Girl" is not quite up there with the writings of Isaiah, but songwriters like Simon and Garfunkel, R.E.M., U2, Pink Floyd often produce poetic genius, meaningful song lyrics, accompanied by appropriate music - remember, the medium is the message, so the musical presentation is part of the prophetic words.
What really strikes me is that these messages are not very much like the "prophecies" we so often hear in church circles. The messages that these artists - and others, like Radiohead, The Verve - give is normally one of challenge, questioning, upsetting, not "God loves you really". A song like No Surprises, by Radiohead is intended to shock and kick - "A job that slowly kills you, bruises that won't heal ... A handshake of carbon monoxide" is a vivid portrait of the comfortable, middle class culture that the church is so often part of.
I suppose it all depends on what you understand a prophet to be. Because the Old Testament prophets were not people who told the future. They were people who told of the reality of the current. They gave a God's-eye view of what was going on. They refused to say "everything is OK" when it wasn't. They refused to say "everything is wrong" when it wasn't. All they did was say things as they were, give a wider perspective on how the world was.
Of course, not all songwriters are prophetic. Not all songs of a particular artist are prophetic. But for some, they are worth listening to, not for their good music, but because they are saying things that we need to hear. They are not the only prophets today - the world of entertainment provides others too, where "entertainers" can prod us and make us really consider issues that we need to think about. Comedy can do this particularly well. But drama is also a way into out conscience.
We need to retune our ears to hear the prophets. They were alsays very disturbing people in their community. They are today disturbing the church as they always have done.
In fact, I think the words of the prophets are more likely to be written by the songwriters and musicians today. Not all of them - oddly "I'm a Cheeky Girl" is not quite up there with the writings of Isaiah, but songwriters like Simon and Garfunkel, R.E.M., U2, Pink Floyd often produce poetic genius, meaningful song lyrics, accompanied by appropriate music - remember, the medium is the message, so the musical presentation is part of the prophetic words.
What really strikes me is that these messages are not very much like the "prophecies" we so often hear in church circles. The messages that these artists - and others, like Radiohead, The Verve - give is normally one of challenge, questioning, upsetting, not "God loves you really". A song like No Surprises, by Radiohead is intended to shock and kick - "A job that slowly kills you, bruises that won't heal ... A handshake of carbon monoxide" is a vivid portrait of the comfortable, middle class culture that the church is so often part of.
I suppose it all depends on what you understand a prophet to be. Because the Old Testament prophets were not people who told the future. They were people who told of the reality of the current. They gave a God's-eye view of what was going on. They refused to say "everything is OK" when it wasn't. They refused to say "everything is wrong" when it wasn't. All they did was say things as they were, give a wider perspective on how the world was.
Of course, not all songwriters are prophetic. Not all songs of a particular artist are prophetic. But for some, they are worth listening to, not for their good music, but because they are saying things that we need to hear. They are not the only prophets today - the world of entertainment provides others too, where "entertainers" can prod us and make us really consider issues that we need to think about. Comedy can do this particularly well. But drama is also a way into out conscience.
We need to retune our ears to hear the prophets. They were alsays very disturbing people in their community. They are today disturbing the church as they always have done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)