Ok, technically dogs don't work - well, unless they are working dogs (I should think my metaphors through more carefully) - and they probably don't use computers or sit at desks on Swiss balls or use free/open source software but all these things aside, it's going to be a busy one today.
In the spirit of procrastination I've left my deliverables to the last moment - though steady progress is being made - and it's time to get stuck in.
Who knows, might even have to cut morning tea back to 20-30 mins :)
23.2.07
22.2.07
Watching: Kevin Rudd on Lateline last night
The more I see of this guy the more impressed I am. The Prime Miniature is going to have to pull out something particularly sneaky and evil this election if he wants to keep his job. (And perhaps his seat)
Ruddy (K-Rudd, the Ruddmeister, Kruddy - this is going to need some work) was really on top of things and seems to have a plan. Admittedly Tony Jones tossed him up a few lollies in the interview stakes and didn't overly push Rudd on some of his answers (most likely because he answered the questions so effectively) but didn't let him off scot-free either, pressing him on what he planned to say to (Evil Dick) Cheney when they meet on Friday.
The usual tired cries of ABC left-wing bias will no doubt spew forth from the peanut gallery (Rod Quantock made the point recently that the ABC would have to be run by Lenin and Marx to make up for the right-wing bias in commercial media) but the fact is that Rudd spoke with conviction and intelligence on a swag of topics for more than 20 minutes. (Another one of the things I love about Lateline and the ABC, which commercial station would give over this much time to a single interview and digging down into detail?)
At the end of the interview, Tony Jones seemed impressed with Rudd and finished up by saying "Kevin Rudd, it sounds like your speechwriters have come from the West Wing" - which I think was a good call. Roll on the election.
You can download this interview from http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/vodcast.htm
The transcript isn't up on the ABC website yet but you can check here for it during the day.
21.2.07
Playing: my new guitar
Sitting in the arm chair last night picking away at my new electric guitar, my housemate Abi came in and sat next to me (banging the guitar head in the process - accidentally I know but it put me on edge a little) and said - "Oh, is that Tim's guitar?".
Now strictly speaking it was Tim's guitar but it's mine now (preeeciiiouss) and for whatever reason I didn't take that so well. It's as though I've mentally incorporated some of the guitar's "cool factor" into my own personality and having the guitar associated with Tim rather than me took me out of that zone.
(Yes, I can be a bit of a twat sometimes :)
Anyway my response was a bit of a mini-scowl and a muttered "No, it's mine". If you're out there Abi, sorry I was a grumpy git. (She promptly disappeared to her room) (And yes, next time I see her I will apologise in person)
Anyway (I really use that word a lot, don't I) after this I took both guitars to my room for a bit of a play. I have a trusty old nylon stringed acoustic as well which I got at uni about 15 years ago when the fret-bar thingys (what do you call the metal bits that divide the frets?) on my first guitar started falling off. (I'd like to say that it's because I was so rock but that's just not true).
So I worked through my usual warm-up routine (previously mentioned here), firstly on the acoustic and then with the electric (all plugged in and amped up).
It was the little differences that made it interesting. I've often bemoaned the fact that the frets on the acoustic are spread so far apart and that the neck is so wide, making it difficult to reach across to the fourth fret and beyond. (Because obviously it wouldn't be my lack of dedication to practice). I took comfort in the thought that when I (finally) got an electric, everything would be more centrally located.
Well this is true however it also means that the strings are a tiny bit closer to one another as well, giving me a decidedly sausage fingers experience at times.
The difference between the nylon (acoustic) and steel (electric) strings helped here in some ways, with the steel strings being thinner and feeling more precise.
After 15 years of playing one guitar, my fingers have physical memory of the chord shapes that I need (mostly - F is still iffy) and that translated across fairly well but finding the strings when picking will take a little more time.
It was when I moved on to the songs that I'm learning that the leccy's charms started to really come out. Rocking along to the admittedly simple chords of the Dandy Warhols' Godless in particular was a lot of fun and if it wasn't so late, I would have been rocking a whole lot louder. (Actually, this doesn't sound very rock at all but what can I say, I'm generally a considerate guy).
Neil Young's Heart of Gold was similarly fun while Down Below by The Cruel Sea possibly sounded better on the acoustic, as did Spanish Sky by Chris Isaak.
Even though there is a strap on the electric, I'm not quite up to standing and playing yet but all things in time.
Now strictly speaking it was Tim's guitar but it's mine now (preeeciiiouss) and for whatever reason I didn't take that so well. It's as though I've mentally incorporated some of the guitar's "cool factor" into my own personality and having the guitar associated with Tim rather than me took me out of that zone.
(Yes, I can be a bit of a twat sometimes :)
Anyway my response was a bit of a mini-scowl and a muttered "No, it's mine". If you're out there Abi, sorry I was a grumpy git. (She promptly disappeared to her room) (And yes, next time I see her I will apologise in person)
Anyway (I really use that word a lot, don't I) after this I took both guitars to my room for a bit of a play. I have a trusty old nylon stringed acoustic as well which I got at uni about 15 years ago when the fret-bar thingys (what do you call the metal bits that divide the frets?) on my first guitar started falling off. (I'd like to say that it's because I was so rock but that's just not true).
So I worked through my usual warm-up routine (previously mentioned here), firstly on the acoustic and then with the electric (all plugged in and amped up).
It was the little differences that made it interesting. I've often bemoaned the fact that the frets on the acoustic are spread so far apart and that the neck is so wide, making it difficult to reach across to the fourth fret and beyond. (Because obviously it wouldn't be my lack of dedication to practice). I took comfort in the thought that when I (finally) got an electric, everything would be more centrally located.
Well this is true however it also means that the strings are a tiny bit closer to one another as well, giving me a decidedly sausage fingers experience at times.
The difference between the nylon (acoustic) and steel (electric) strings helped here in some ways, with the steel strings being thinner and feeling more precise.
After 15 years of playing one guitar, my fingers have physical memory of the chord shapes that I need (mostly - F is still iffy) and that translated across fairly well but finding the strings when picking will take a little more time.
It was when I moved on to the songs that I'm learning that the leccy's charms started to really come out. Rocking along to the admittedly simple chords of the Dandy Warhols' Godless in particular was a lot of fun and if it wasn't so late, I would have been rocking a whole lot louder. (Actually, this doesn't sound very rock at all but what can I say, I'm generally a considerate guy).
Neil Young's Heart of Gold was similarly fun while Down Below by The Cruel Sea possibly sounded better on the acoustic, as did Spanish Sky by Chris Isaak.
Even though there is a strap on the electric, I'm not quite up to standing and playing yet but all things in time.
20.2.07
Playing : Babyfoot
Babyfoot, Foosball, Table Soccer (Babyfoot is the French term for it and I'd say the coolest) - whatever you call it, I've been playing it.
Not necessarily as well as these guys but playing it nonetheless.
My (now former) housemate Tim's friend Hamish (whose room incidentally I now live in) has a serious babyfoot table set up in his flat and Eric (French housemate), Tim and I headed over there last night for a few beers and a few games.
I might start by mentioning that this is a game that I've played perhaps 5 times in my life - it's always seemed interesting but ultimately I've tended to prefer Air Hockey.
(Not that I'm making excuses for how particularly lame I was/am at the game, it's just a fact. I'm happy to have scored a few goals in each game and not done the undy run around the table)
One of the things I like about Hamish's table is that each player has the head of a rock/pop star. (And Stevie Wonder is stuck in the middle of the field as referee).
Here's Art Garfunkel. Some I didn't recognise but I remember Kurt Cobain, PJ Harvey, Thom Yorke, Janis Joplin and I'm not sure if this was McCartney or Jagger.
There is apparently some secret key to the two teams (I suspect it's living vs dead musicians) but this is yet to be revealed.
The gameplay was fun and surprisingly physical, there are evidently key strategies that I need to learn (though I might say that we didn't see any of the trick shots from the video, so maybe if I master them...) and the evening ended with Hamish proclaimed supreme master of the table. (Ok, not literally, that would be just far too geeky but he did reign undefeated)
Here are a few more shots - I'm a bit of a fan of the camera phone look, I thought about bringing my proper digital camera but there is something very documentary, very gritty and real about pix from a camera phone that really appeals. It also brings a slightly painterly quality to things as well (if you'll excuse the wankiness)
Ok, well I'm off to eBay now to see what one of these babies is worth.
(I'm also thinking that if - scratch that - when I have a band, Babyfoot is a pretty good name. Up there with Ampersand - which unfortunately is taken).
One final thing that I liked about this particular table was that with the red vs navy blue strip it was just like the A-League final between Melbourne and Adelaide the other day.
Not necessarily as well as these guys but playing it nonetheless.
My (now former) housemate Tim's friend Hamish (whose room incidentally I now live in) has a serious babyfoot table set up in his flat and Eric (French housemate), Tim and I headed over there last night for a few beers and a few games.
I might start by mentioning that this is a game that I've played perhaps 5 times in my life - it's always seemed interesting but ultimately I've tended to prefer Air Hockey.
(Not that I'm making excuses for how particularly lame I was/am at the game, it's just a fact. I'm happy to have scored a few goals in each game and not done the undy run around the table)
One of the things I like about Hamish's table is that each player has the head of a rock/pop star. (And Stevie Wonder is stuck in the middle of the field as referee).
Here's Art Garfunkel. Some I didn't recognise but I remember Kurt Cobain, PJ Harvey, Thom Yorke, Janis Joplin and I'm not sure if this was McCartney or Jagger.
There is apparently some secret key to the two teams (I suspect it's living vs dead musicians) but this is yet to be revealed.
The gameplay was fun and surprisingly physical, there are evidently key strategies that I need to learn (though I might say that we didn't see any of the trick shots from the video, so maybe if I master them...) and the evening ended with Hamish proclaimed supreme master of the table. (Ok, not literally, that would be just far too geeky but he did reign undefeated)
Here are a few more shots - I'm a bit of a fan of the camera phone look, I thought about bringing my proper digital camera but there is something very documentary, very gritty and real about pix from a camera phone that really appeals. It also brings a slightly painterly quality to things as well (if you'll excuse the wankiness)
Ok, well I'm off to eBay now to see what one of these babies is worth.
(I'm also thinking that if - scratch that - when I have a band, Babyfoot is a pretty good name. Up there with Ampersand - which unfortunately is taken).
One final thing that I liked about this particular table was that with the red vs navy blue strip it was just like the A-League final between Melbourne and Adelaide the other day.
19.2.07
Grinning : like an idiot
Dear God, please let this be true :)
PM may struggle to hold Bennelong
A poll out this morning indicates Prime Minister John Howard may face a battle to hold his own seat at the next federal election.
A poll conducted by Roy Morgan Research, for the Crikey website, has found Labor is ahead in Mr Howard's Sydney seat of Bennelong 55 to 45 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.
The poll of 400 Bennelong voters was carried out in the middle of last week.
It also revealed a 75 per cent approval rating for Kevin Rudd compared to 44 per cent for the Prime Minister.
The ABC contacted the Prime Minister's office this morning but there was no comment on the Bennelong polling.
Being reminded : why I hate the Murdoch press
(In which Couch Media gets a little Bolt-Watchy)
While The Australian makes claims to be Australia's quality national broadsheet newspaper, (well it is the only nominally national broadsheet) I tend not to read it for it's tendency to rapidly angry up the blood.
Like the rest of the Murdoch/Newscorpse stable, it skews steadfastly to the right of the political spectrum - less obnoxiously than the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph but far more smugly.
I had an RSS feed pop up on the computer just now from The Australian website while I was setting up my Netvibes account on a new computer at work. One headline in particular grabbed my attention - Critics' 'conspiracy' perplexes Flannery.
For those who came in late, Tim Flannery - environmentalist and this years tokenistic choice for Australian of the Year (deserving - certainly but few doubt that this award isn't a desperate grab for eco-cred by the Howard govt) has been taking a bit of flack recent by the usual suspects (the right-wing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs primarily and assorted Murdoch journos) for his public statements and positions on environmental issues.
In a thinly veiled attempt to give all of these criticisms another airing and Flannery another bashing, The Australian has today run a 'story' with the aforementioned headline - Critics 'conspiracy' perplexes Flannery
The language used to describe Flannery is the first sign that something is amiss. Putting 'conspiracy' in the headline (and later in the body of the article) creates links to conspiracy theorys - the domain of wild haired nutters the world over - and sets the tone of the piece.
He is also variously described directly by the journalist as
He also
There is no indication whatsoever that the journalist here - Brad Norington - has even actually spoken to Flannery about this matter - there are a few quotes here and there but these could well have been taken from other sources - indeed I remember reading at least one of them over the weekend in a non-Murdoch paper.
At no point does Flannery directly say that he believes there is any conspiracy - despite the fact that this is the gist of the headline. The closest they come is
If he had actually said something along these lines, why not quote him. Quoting one word - which for all we know was a word he had to spell in a high-school spelling bee - followed up with a "possibly" which gives the writer license to speculate at will - is a shocking example of writing.
Further quotes (much lengthier ones) are taken from the aforementioned usual suspects, including this doozy from the IPA
A further "expert" is drawn in - John Benson, a senior plant ecologist at Sydney's Botanic Gardens Trust - as you really need another scientist's opinion if you are going to attack someone who knows more about something than you or right-wing ideologues.
I'm just wondering how far Norington had to go through his phone book of scientists before he found someone prepared to speak to him. Most of what is written about Benson's concerns isn't even directly quoted but paraphrased - and putting spin on what someone meant is a world away from reporting what they actually said. The only direct quote from Benson is this -
This doesn't read like a disputation of the fact at all, more an expression of disappointment that people who weren't Tim Flannery chose to misrepresent something that he had said to pursue their own agenda. (Of course, I guess Murdoch journo's aren't familiar with this concept so this interpretation no doubt didn't occur to Norington)
The article goes on to imply that Flannery should be mistrusted for being on good terms with Malcolm Turnbull and Alexander Downer and trying to exert influence in the political sphere (because obviously issues such as global warming are best addressed by opening and closing the fridge door a few dozen times to let the cold out) and also because he receives money for giving public lectures.
It finishes with an admission that Flannery tries to live a carbon neutral lifestyle - which no doubt stuck in Norington's craw as the first thing Murdoch "journos" love to do with eco activists is point out that they use cars and thus are rank hypocrites because they want us all to live in bark huts but don't do it themselves.
(Actually, this is one of the points made time and time again - it's particularly been made in attacking Al Gore - the fact that he flies around the world decrying man-made climate change but flying adds to it - that shows the stupidity of the right.
This absolutist positioning that people trying to save the planet expect everything to be suddenly shut down rather than approached in a more rational and sustainable manner just shows how desperate the corporate minions are to FUD things up. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - techniques mastered by big business, particularly Big Tobacco, to maintain the status quo).
John Howard (I have no doubt) had Tim Flannery appointed Australian of the Year because his government has a serious eco credibility issue in the lead up to this years election so he can't come out and trash the people who actually want to do things about it but I'm sure he thanks Rupert every night that he has friends that will do it for him.
[Outraged rant ends :)]
While The Australian makes claims to be Australia's quality national broadsheet newspaper, (well it is the only nominally national broadsheet) I tend not to read it for it's tendency to rapidly angry up the blood.
Like the rest of the Murdoch/Newscorpse stable, it skews steadfastly to the right of the political spectrum - less obnoxiously than the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph but far more smugly.
I had an RSS feed pop up on the computer just now from The Australian website while I was setting up my Netvibes account on a new computer at work. One headline in particular grabbed my attention - Critics' 'conspiracy' perplexes Flannery.
For those who came in late, Tim Flannery - environmentalist and this years tokenistic choice for Australian of the Year (deserving - certainly but few doubt that this award isn't a desperate grab for eco-cred by the Howard govt) has been taking a bit of flack recent by the usual suspects (the right-wing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs primarily and assorted Murdoch journos) for his public statements and positions on environmental issues.
In a thinly veiled attempt to give all of these criticisms another airing and Flannery another bashing, The Australian has today run a 'story' with the aforementioned headline - Critics 'conspiracy' perplexes Flannery
The language used to describe Flannery is the first sign that something is amiss. Putting 'conspiracy' in the headline (and later in the body of the article) creates links to conspiracy theorys - the domain of wild haired nutters the world over - and sets the tone of the piece.
He is also variously described directly by the journalist as
having a look of naive bewilderment,
playing the media game
doomsayingand
trying to court public attention.
He also
gets agitatedand
his problem appears an old one: a tendency to sensationalise for maximum impact based on the research of others(Who else do you think of when you read "agitated"? The mentally ill perhaps?)
There is no indication whatsoever that the journalist here - Brad Norington - has even actually spoken to Flannery about this matter - there are a few quotes here and there but these could well have been taken from other sources - indeed I remember reading at least one of them over the weekend in a non-Murdoch paper.
At no point does Flannery directly say that he believes there is any conspiracy - despite the fact that this is the gist of the headline. The closest they come is
He fears a "conspiracy", possibly encouraged at the highest levels of power, is working hard to tear him down.
If he had actually said something along these lines, why not quote him. Quoting one word - which for all we know was a word he had to spell in a high-school spelling bee - followed up with a "possibly" which gives the writer license to speculate at will - is a shocking example of writing.
Further quotes (much lengthier ones) are taken from the aforementioned usual suspects, including this doozy from the IPA
Alan Moran, a director with the Institute of Public Affairs, says Flannery "continually" talks outside his academic expertise and makes outlandish statements: "He's basically an alarmist and not very careful with the factual support for what he says. He's made a lot of comments about coal over time and has not been misunderstood because he's very anti-coal."
A further "expert" is drawn in - John Benson, a senior plant ecologist at Sydney's Botanic Gardens Trust - as you really need another scientist's opinion if you are going to attack someone who knows more about something than you or right-wing ideologues.
I'm just wondering how far Norington had to go through his phone book of scientists before he found someone prepared to speak to him. Most of what is written about Benson's concerns isn't even directly quoted but paraphrased - and putting spin on what someone meant is a world away from reporting what they actually said. The only direct quote from Benson is this -
He also disputes Flannery's claim in The Future Eaters that Aborigines helped the nation's ecology by deliberately setting bushfires. "That was used in the wrong hands to justify land clearing," he says.
This doesn't read like a disputation of the fact at all, more an expression of disappointment that people who weren't Tim Flannery chose to misrepresent something that he had said to pursue their own agenda. (Of course, I guess Murdoch journo's aren't familiar with this concept so this interpretation no doubt didn't occur to Norington)
The article goes on to imply that Flannery should be mistrusted for being on good terms with Malcolm Turnbull and Alexander Downer and trying to exert influence in the political sphere (because obviously issues such as global warming are best addressed by opening and closing the fridge door a few dozen times to let the cold out) and also because he receives money for giving public lectures.
It finishes with an admission that Flannery tries to live a carbon neutral lifestyle - which no doubt stuck in Norington's craw as the first thing Murdoch "journos" love to do with eco activists is point out that they use cars and thus are rank hypocrites because they want us all to live in bark huts but don't do it themselves.
(Actually, this is one of the points made time and time again - it's particularly been made in attacking Al Gore - the fact that he flies around the world decrying man-made climate change but flying adds to it - that shows the stupidity of the right.
This absolutist positioning that people trying to save the planet expect everything to be suddenly shut down rather than approached in a more rational and sustainable manner just shows how desperate the corporate minions are to FUD things up. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - techniques mastered by big business, particularly Big Tobacco, to maintain the status quo).
John Howard (I have no doubt) had Tim Flannery appointed Australian of the Year because his government has a serious eco credibility issue in the lead up to this years election so he can't come out and trash the people who actually want to do things about it but I'm sure he thanks Rupert every night that he has friends that will do it for him.
[Outraged rant ends :)]
18.2.07
16.2.07
Updating: Battlestar Galactica post
Yesterday I commented briefly on the fact that I thought that sci-fi shows seem to be getting for more militarised:
(Is it weird to blockquote yourself?)
Anyways, I guess I must have picked up on this vibe from the ether as this morning I found a link to a blog post (http://barnesm.journalspace.com/) from a few days ago on this very topic. (Which may or may not do a much better job on it than I did :)
Interesting reading
The current trend in American sf towards quite militaristically themed programmes is unfortunate perhaps (a little too rah-rah army) but unavoidable given the leanings of the U.S govt of late (and the so-called "War on Terror").
(Is it weird to blockquote yourself?)
Anyways, I guess I must have picked up on this vibe from the ether as this morning I found a link to a blog post (http://barnesm.journalspace.com/) from a few days ago on this very topic. (Which may or may not do a much better job on it than I did :)
Another example of how our scif-fi, and perhaps these are a reflection of societal changes, is the attitudes held by the protagonists are moving towards a more 'total war' mind set.
In Star Trek: the Next generation ' I, Borg' (1992) the federation is facing an enemy (The Borg) that is threatening to wipe it out, (- although in spite of this the population of the federation never seems to drop below billions of beings), when the Enterprise crew develop a computer virus to infect their pet Borg 'Hugh' and send him back to the collective this virus would wipe the Borg out. Do they choose to eliminate the 'greatest threat the federation has ever faced', NO of course not, everyone in the crew from the captain down are bleating about stuff like: Hugh's now an individual, we don't have the right to wipe out a species…etc.
Now contrast this with
Battlestar Galactica: reimaged 'A measure of salvation' (2007) where humanity is down to less that 50,000 and the Cyclons hold the numbers, the weapons and the reproductive advantage, when a way is found that if they kill the infected cyclon prisoners when they are in range of a resurrection ship when these cyclons ('skin jobs' as they call them, thank you Blade Runner) download they will infect the entire race, (trust me it makes sense in the series) and die. Both the president Roslin and Commander of the Military Adama hesitate all of 2 seconds before they put in motion the plan for Genocide, any hand wringing, any 'do we have the right', they initiate the plan as soon as possible.
Interesting reading
Drinking: the recommended wine
I popped out to Caffe Della Piazza in Garema Place (Civic, Canberra) last night - a bit of a favourite in the Italian stakes in town.
What I particularly like about this restaurant is the way they list the recommended wines with each meal (evidently they have a multi-award winning wine cellar). I can't say I've generally followed the recommendations to date but thought I'd give it a try last night as I really didn't know what I wanted.
So I had the Pollo Martinella (something like that) - chicken breast sitting on top big mushroom with fetta and with this a Villa Maria Sauvignon Blanc - worked an absolute treat. Nice, full, fruity and cold.
(Excuse the brevity of the post, I'd figured that I could do a spiel on the joys of filling in breakfast radio but checking back I did that last week. Oh well. )
What I particularly like about this restaurant is the way they list the recommended wines with each meal (evidently they have a multi-award winning wine cellar). I can't say I've generally followed the recommendations to date but thought I'd give it a try last night as I really didn't know what I wanted.
So I had the Pollo Martinella (something like that) - chicken breast sitting on top big mushroom with fetta and with this a Villa Maria Sauvignon Blanc - worked an absolute treat. Nice, full, fruity and cold.
(Excuse the brevity of the post, I'd figured that I could do a spiel on the joys of filling in breakfast radio but checking back I did that last week. Oh well. )
15.2.07
Watching: BattleStar Galactica
I figured that if I was going to be a single geek on Valentine's Day, I should act like one :)
Possibly the geekiest thing about Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is the fact that the I.T genius just happens to be shagging - either in flashback or imagination - the most attractive woman in the show (far right of pic) and is now working his moves on the second most.(middle of pic) (Actually, for the record, I find the first one a little disturbingly masculine for my tastes but I'm sure fanboys across the 'tubes feel differently).
But seriously, while it's very early days yet, I'm really enjoying this show (and not just for the nerd wish-fulfilment reasons above) - BSG is actually well written sci-fi (sf) with a lot of interesting ideas.
The current trend in American sf towards quite militaristically themed programmes is unfortunate perhaps (a little too rah-rah army) but unavoidable given the leanings of the U.S govt of late (and the so-called "War on Terror").
BSG however has made the most of this with some interesting insights into the ethical issues involved in dealing with possible suicide bombers and enemy-within paranoia. (I'm looking forward to their examination of Abu Ghraib style interrogation).
While I'm yet to see it, from what I've read, as the story progresses the evil robotic Cylons come more and more to represent the US forces in Iraq while the plucky humans act like the insurgents.
Now maybe this is just one skewed view of the development of the story but I've read this in a few places (none of which spring to mind of course or I'd link to them) so I'm prepared to accept this as true.
This is one of the things I really like about the SF genre (and the horror genre as well for that matter) - because they are somewhat marginalised, put into the too-nerdy-to-take-seriously basket, you'll often find that they contain some of pop cultures most incisive social commentary.
I'll keep you posted on my adventures in geekdom.
14.2.07
Imagining : songs with my name
Waiting at the traffic lights this morning on the ride to work, a song fragment popped into my head. I don't know the title (I'm guessing Daniel) but the lyrics were
I'm pretty sure this is an Elton John song but the whys and wherefores of why it came to mind are beyond me.
Anyway, it made me think about the number of songs that have people's names in them and whether these songs are somehow special to them. (Or alternately, whether they cringe every time it comes up - imagine Roxanne, for instance).
Personally I've never heard a song with my name - Colin - in it so I don't really know. Interestingly, a quick google tells me that Blur have a song called Colin Zeal but this is the first I've heard of it's existance.
So given this lack of a song about - well - me (ok, more specifically my name but you know you would make it about you as well), I started pondering who might actually sing a song about Colin.
A few tidbits about Colin before we press on - it was last year announced as the twentieth whitest name ever and in my case, came from one of the Chronicles of Narnia books - either The Silver Chair or The Horse and His Boy. (Which I suspect is why I have a slight aversion to the fantasy genre).
Colin is a particularly English name (Scottish as well) so my first thought was Jarvis Cocker/Pulp - given the Blur thing it's nice to see that I wasn't so far off.
Being a Jarvis/Pulp song I would imagine Colin wearing a green vest with diamond patterns on the front, working in a bank and living a life of quiet desparation while dreaming of more. (Of course, that sums up a lot of Pulp songs - bless'em)
This being a bit bleak, I moved on to Australian Crawl and particularly one of my favourite songs of theirs, Errol. (About Errol Flynn).
Hey, if they can write a song about a guy called Errol, how difficult could Colin be?
And the chorus works pretty well too.
Tenacious D might like the comedic value of a name like Colin - I really don't know what they might do with it and for some reason I'm concerned that this would end up being a metal-opera song about a gerbil or something, so possibly better that they don't.
I have to say I'd be pretty happy if Peaches released a Colin song - I really can't imagine how it would go but it would be sexy as all get out, there would be great riffage, a healthy dollop of swearing and my cool factor would easily double overnight.
Eeyewww - I just thought of another band that could conceivably write a Colin song - The Whitlams. Damn them to hell for spoiling my daydreams of being musically immortalised.
Other possibilities - Augie March, Bjork, Cake, Chumbawumba, The Flaming Lips, Franz Ferdinand, Justin Timberlake (just kidding), Lemon Jelly, Machine Translations, Mogwai, Morrissey, Pink Floyd, The Shins, The Stone Roses and Yo La Tengo.
I'd like to be able to add Nick Cave to that list (and possibly Kiss) but that's never going to happen.
Ooh and I just thought of another Col song that I have actually heard - Weddings Parties Anything - The ballad of Peggy and Col.
So what about you? What are your songs or who do you think would write a good song about you/your name?
(Here are the lyrics to Colin Zeal anyway, for what it's worth)
And it looked like Daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes
I'm pretty sure this is an Elton John song but the whys and wherefores of why it came to mind are beyond me.
Anyway, it made me think about the number of songs that have people's names in them and whether these songs are somehow special to them. (Or alternately, whether they cringe every time it comes up - imagine Roxanne, for instance).
Personally I've never heard a song with my name - Colin - in it so I don't really know. Interestingly, a quick google tells me that Blur have a song called Colin Zeal but this is the first I've heard of it's existance.
So given this lack of a song about - well - me (ok, more specifically my name but you know you would make it about you as well), I started pondering who might actually sing a song about Colin.
A few tidbits about Colin before we press on - it was last year announced as the twentieth whitest name ever and in my case, came from one of the Chronicles of Narnia books - either The Silver Chair or The Horse and His Boy. (Which I suspect is why I have a slight aversion to the fantasy genre).
Colin is a particularly English name (Scottish as well) so my first thought was Jarvis Cocker/Pulp - given the Blur thing it's nice to see that I wasn't so far off.
Being a Jarvis/Pulp song I would imagine Colin wearing a green vest with diamond patterns on the front, working in a bank and living a life of quiet desparation while dreaming of more. (Of course, that sums up a lot of Pulp songs - bless'em)
This being a bit bleak, I moved on to Australian Crawl and particularly one of my favourite songs of theirs, Errol. (About Errol Flynn).
Hey, if they can write a song about a guy called Errol, how difficult could Colin be?
And the chorus works pretty well too.
"Oh Colin, I would give everything, just to be like him"
Tenacious D might like the comedic value of a name like Colin - I really don't know what they might do with it and for some reason I'm concerned that this would end up being a metal-opera song about a gerbil or something, so possibly better that they don't.
I have to say I'd be pretty happy if Peaches released a Colin song - I really can't imagine how it would go but it would be sexy as all get out, there would be great riffage, a healthy dollop of swearing and my cool factor would easily double overnight.
Eeyewww - I just thought of another band that could conceivably write a Colin song - The Whitlams. Damn them to hell for spoiling my daydreams of being musically immortalised.
Other possibilities - Augie March, Bjork, Cake, Chumbawumba, The Flaming Lips, Franz Ferdinand, Justin Timberlake (just kidding), Lemon Jelly, Machine Translations, Mogwai, Morrissey, Pink Floyd, The Shins, The Stone Roses and Yo La Tengo.
I'd like to be able to add Nick Cave to that list (and possibly Kiss) but that's never going to happen.
Ooh and I just thought of another Col song that I have actually heard - Weddings Parties Anything - The ballad of Peggy and Col.
So what about you? What are your songs or who do you think would write a good song about you/your name?
(Here are the lyrics to Colin Zeal anyway, for what it's worth)
Colin Zeal knows the value of mass appeal
He's a pedestrian walker, he's a civil talker
He's an affable man with a plausible plan
Keeps his eye on the news, keeps his future in hand
And then he...
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
While sitting in traffic, Colin thinks in automatic
He's an immaculate dresser, he's your common aggressor
He's a modern retard with a love of bombast
Keeps his eye on the news, doesn't dwells on the past
And then he...
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
And then he...
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
Looks at his watch, he's on time yet again
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
He's pleased with himself, he's pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
He's pleased with himself, he's so pleased with himself
He's so pleased with himself, ah ha
He's a modern retard, he's terminal lard
He's an affable man, with a carrotene tan
Because Colin Zeal's ill
Colin Zeal's ill
Colin Zeal's ill)
'Cos Colin Zeal knows
13.2.07
Watching: Auslan videos
For work recently I've been converting some videos made in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).
They are set up like a morning tv talk show, with host and guest doing an interview on a comfy couch in a pastel studio - just with no sound.
At uni, it was drummed into me endlessly by my film teacher (and I thank him for it to this day) that the pictures are only half of the film/video - the soundtrack is equally important but generally is not treated as such.
This is the obvious exception. (That said, I was still surprised at first that there was no sound at all and had to call and check if there was meant to be any - old habits die hard)
It is said that when (hearing) people communicate, they get something like 93% of the meaning of the conversation from non-verbal cues - body language, facial expressions and the like. (Not sure if tone of voice applies here - I guess not). This makes it interesting to watch someone signing, as it's all non-verbal. Does the 93% rule still apply or is there some other equation drawn into the mix?
This isn't one of the videos that I've been working on (not sure about the copyright issues) but it is a good example of the expressiveness that comes into Auslan.
There are the hand gestures but there are also a range of facial expressions.
This next one is kind of interesting as well in that the resolution is a fair bit lower, which raises the question, how detailed are these gestures and how large does the screen need to be to convey the conversation in a video. (A question I'm working on at the moment with our Auslan teacher)(Update: apparently the 320 x 240 is too small, she prefers the 720 x 576)
A few other random thoughts that come to mind:
Do people sign differently when they are drunk, angry/fighting, distracted, have sore hands?
Wouldn't it have been cool if there was a moment in the Buffy episode "Hush" - the one where monsters steal everyone's voices - if there were a couple of deaf people signing to each other going - "what are these people all freaking out about?"
How do you work around the use of voiceover in videos? (Subtitles?)
Am I invading people's privacy by posting these videos? (Well, they put them up on YouTube)
What about "singing" along to music? (Actually, this is one of those questions you ask when you already know the answer - here's a final video where someone is signing a song - it's Savage Garden so I'm guessing it can only be an improvement) (Damn it, it had to be the only Auslan video where they have the sound on it :)
They are set up like a morning tv talk show, with host and guest doing an interview on a comfy couch in a pastel studio - just with no sound.
At uni, it was drummed into me endlessly by my film teacher (and I thank him for it to this day) that the pictures are only half of the film/video - the soundtrack is equally important but generally is not treated as such.
This is the obvious exception. (That said, I was still surprised at first that there was no sound at all and had to call and check if there was meant to be any - old habits die hard)
It is said that when (hearing) people communicate, they get something like 93% of the meaning of the conversation from non-verbal cues - body language, facial expressions and the like. (Not sure if tone of voice applies here - I guess not). This makes it interesting to watch someone signing, as it's all non-verbal. Does the 93% rule still apply or is there some other equation drawn into the mix?
This isn't one of the videos that I've been working on (not sure about the copyright issues) but it is a good example of the expressiveness that comes into Auslan.
There are the hand gestures but there are also a range of facial expressions.
This next one is kind of interesting as well in that the resolution is a fair bit lower, which raises the question, how detailed are these gestures and how large does the screen need to be to convey the conversation in a video. (A question I'm working on at the moment with our Auslan teacher)(Update: apparently the 320 x 240 is too small, she prefers the 720 x 576)
A few other random thoughts that come to mind:
Do people sign differently when they are drunk, angry/fighting, distracted, have sore hands?
Wouldn't it have been cool if there was a moment in the Buffy episode "Hush" - the one where monsters steal everyone's voices - if there were a couple of deaf people signing to each other going - "what are these people all freaking out about?"
How do you work around the use of voiceover in videos? (Subtitles?)
Am I invading people's privacy by posting these videos? (Well, they put them up on YouTube)
What about "singing" along to music? (Actually, this is one of those questions you ask when you already know the answer - here's a final video where someone is signing a song - it's Savage Garden so I'm guessing it can only be an improvement) (Damn it, it had to be the only Auslan video where they have the sound on it :)
12.2.07
Building: a website
On Friday I finished the shell for the new XXfm (currently known as 2XXfm - more on this in a minute) website - you can check out the whole site here - http://www.users.bigpond.com/colsim
This isn't the first time I've worked on the XXfm website but it's certainly been a different experience to the last one. For one thing, I've learnt a fair slab of CSS this time. (Whoo, welcome to 1998 :) This means that the site is lightweight (ie - small file size meaning that it loads quickly) and that it's easier to change.
I could go off on a big bitch about the way that politics, ego and empire building have made it more difficult to go about implementing the website (which strictly speaking still isn't finished) but frankly that would involve joining the game and I would just as rather not. Besides, I'm sure that some of my actions are probably relatively controversial (in a small community volunteer organisation sense, not in a logical sense) and I could do without the aggravation. So I won't.
Suffice to say that the station has been known as 2XX ever since we switched from the AM band (where all call-signs are 2 letters prefaced by a number indicating the state/territory that you are in). My feeling is that the station identity needs a revamp and that 2xx suggests that we are still an AM station (in attitude at the very least).
Shifting to XXfm seems a logical move. (Technically, the station callsign was changed to 1XXR fm when we go the FM license but XX seems a little stronger, edgier. )
Having been involved in a volunteer community organisation before however where we tried to change the name, I know that this is a highly contentious issue - we went from RAT tv (Richmond Access Television) to YCAT (Yarra Community Access Tv). Yarra TV - my suggestion, died in committee. (I read a quote a while back that
committees are the cul-de-sacs that ideas are lured down and quietly strangled).
Anyway, my point is that changing the name - and ideally the logo, as this has been around as long as the station - is going to cause ructions. I have full support from station management but there are some there who aren't necessarily on top on things when it comes to dealing with people.
Wow, I guess this has all been building up in me for a while.
Getting back to the website building, I started by investigating as many other community radio stations as possible, getting an idea of the kind of content that they provide and stealing as many good ideas as I could find. This included sections like - how do I get my band on air, announcer and listener profiles and a community discussion board.
To this I've added things that I haven't seen on other sites but that I have come across in the course of general browsing and investigating nifty web tools for work (Flickr badges, interactive Google maps) and added the possibility of user generated content - XXfm promos and custom designed banner ads for the station.
This progressed to whipping up a design in photoshop - all very web 2.0, rounded corners and clean space, simple colour scheme (orange black and white) and from there it was on to actually building the thing.
With a quick stop to work through a Learning CSS book on the way, what you see above is pretty much the culmination. (The rounded corners are yet to come - they're much more fiddly than you would think).
Probably the most challenging part of the building process - after fracking around trying to find a colour combination that has sufficient colour and contrast difference to meet accessibility guidelines - has been ensuring cross browser compatibility.
I was a little surprised here to find that IE7 tended to display things much better than my much preferred Flock and Firefox. Most of the tweaking has been to get things positioned properly in the minority (but superior) browser. (Of course, my buttons display properly now in the Firefox family and are just a bit off in IE but it's all good)
Getting access to the web server will be the next challenge - apparently that presents a security risk. (Sigh).
11.2.07
9.2.07
Filling in : Friday Breakfast
Breakfast radio is a different beast in some ways to the drivetime (Sunset) shift. I know that one of the main things I want first up is the weather and some good, energetic get up and about music.
So this is what I tried to bring to Friday Breakfast (7am - 8.30) on XXfm this morning, filling in for (imho) one of XXfm's star DJs (though I know he would hate being called that) Fintan.
As usual, I put the tracks together last night, trying to keep the energy up and made sure to throw in a token Stooges track (Fintan is a bit of a fan and has worked his way through the entire Stooges/Iggy Pop discography a number of times now over the years in this slot). The Stooges track was actually a mashup with Push it by Salt'n'Pepa, so hopefully it went over ok with the Friday brekky listeners.
I suspect my banter/rantings might have been a little more scattered than usual today as well (up til 1.30 watching Bad Boy Bubby) but there didn't seem to be any significant stuff ups, so I'll call it a job well done for now.
So this is what I tried to bring to Friday Breakfast (7am - 8.30) on XXfm this morning, filling in for (imho) one of XXfm's star DJs (though I know he would hate being called that) Fintan.
As usual, I put the tracks together last night, trying to keep the energy up and made sure to throw in a token Stooges track (Fintan is a bit of a fan and has worked his way through the entire Stooges/Iggy Pop discography a number of times now over the years in this slot). The Stooges track was actually a mashup with Push it by Salt'n'Pepa, so hopefully it went over ok with the Friday brekky listeners.
I suspect my banter/rantings might have been a little more scattered than usual today as well (up til 1.30 watching Bad Boy Bubby) but there didn't seem to be any significant stuff ups, so I'll call it a job well done for now.
8.2.07
Comparing: the book and the movie (Perfume)
I saw Perfume: The story of a murderer last night - with a little trepidation I must add as I've been a fan of the book ever since I read it around five years ago.
In short, it tells the story of Grenouille, born in the aromatic (that's the nice word) world of the Paris fish markets in the 1700s with the greatest sense of smell in the world. His gift (and his complete lack of any body odour) set him apart from others and he spends a lot of time in the world of scents - first identifying and then working out how to reproduce them.
When he finds the most beautiful, most powerful scent of all - that of a beautiful adolescent virgin, he must possess it and this is where things start to go a little pear-shaped.
I won't give much more away about the story as it is a stunningly original story, which in many ways feels like a lost fairytale, but suffice to say in the course of learning and reproducing scents, he learns the perfumer's trade to master the capturing of them. (Scents, not adolescent virgins :)
This is the story (not surprisingly) that both the book and the film told.
Obviously a film and a book are completely different beasts. You experience them in different ways and locations (socially vs on your own, in "their" environment vs yours, at a set time for a proscribed length of time vs whenever you choose and for however long you wish to make the experience last.)
While reading the book you create the sights, sounds, smells and feelings in your head, bringing your prior knowledge and experiences to bear in the re-creation of the world that the author describes. You interact with the story by imagining it.
You also get the insight of the author into the story and the world of the characters - something that can be put across in thick, hard to film paragraphs (even pages) of explanatory text, inner monologues and God-view perspectives of the action. It is often these parts that give you the true heart and soul of the story - the ideas behind it.
On the other hand, a film (particularly this one) is a big, expensive project drawing on the talents and ideas of a horde of people. It takes away your imaginings and presents the vision of the film makers in it's place. This is generally a double edged sword - I must admit that my knowledge of day to day life in 17th century France is rather lessened by not having been there (now or back then) and while the novel does a lot to create a sensation of being there, there are always gaps in the sights and sounds. (The smells and feelings of course are another matter).
Add to this the director's own personal style (Tom Tykwer - Run Lola Run) and the need to tell a story which might take you 5-10+ hours to read into a form suited to the commercial needs of the movie business and there are always going to be changes made.
(This can often work out for the best - in my mind, the film version of Fight Club - directed by David (Seven) Fincher is actually a stronger version of the story than the original novel by Chuck Palahniuk - who incidentally is a freakin' genius).
So obviously, comparing a book with a film is problematic at best. They are different beasts experienced in different ways and designed with different intentions.
Comparison is in many ways as redundant as comparing the performances of actors in
different movies in determining the winner of a best actor award. (I've always subscribed to the theory that these should be used to determine a short list and the actors should then all act the same scene in the same role to decide the winner)
Yet at the heart of both the book and the film is the story and it is in the telling of the story (factoring in all the other differing elements) that we do make a decision about the two.
Ultimately, I was a little disappointed by the film, mainly because it glossed over two of the things that I found the most interesting about the character of Grenouille. The fact that Grenouille has no smell of his own is established right from the start in the book - it sets him up as the outsider in the orphanage and drives his obsession with firstly reproducing and then inventing smells, one of the first that he creates is something for himself (partially made from cat poo) to make himself smell like an average person.
The lack of his own smell is fleetingly mentioned in the film when Grenouille spends time in a remote cave but for something which seems so pivotal to his motivations (in my mind at least), this is the only reference to it. While the cave scenes are infinitely richer in the book, they would be entirely difficult to bring to film so I can understand them being truncated but it really felt like a lost opportunity to tell a great part of the story.
The second half of the film - which follows the book into the slightly more exciting territory of the virgin smell stuff - is more emphasised as this seems to slot more easily into film conventions, particularly that of the thriller.
The ending of the book is one of the great literary endings and I was concerned briefly that the filmmakers were going to cop-out for the sake of keeping the film marketable but to their credit they came through in the end - perhaps with a slightly milder version of events than the book suggests (or perhaps that my twisted mind had invented :)
Being such a massive production (apparently the most expensive film in German history), there is a sense of the commercial imperatives in this film. Given Tom Twyker's work previously, I was expecting something more stylised and edgier (though I do give him full credit for imaginatively visually telling a story that focusses on something that the audience can't ever see) but overall it seemed quite conventional.
It would be very interesting to know what someone who hasn't read the book thinks of this film - as I've mentioned, it's rare that you find a film that matches the depth and intricacy of the book and so you try to account for that when seeing it but it's inevitable that your knowledge of one will shade your experience of the other. (I saw the film of Fight Club before I read the book).
All in all, putting the book aside, this is a pretty good film, a great story, pretty pictures and some interesting ideas. It runs fairly long (147 mins) and has some slow patches but is worth a look. The friend I saw it with was concerned that it might taint her future readings of the book by replacing her imagery but she came out feeling that it was pretty close to the way she had seen it.
(Interesting trivia - the author, Patrick Susskind, resisted requests for the rights to make a film for more than a decade and chronicled his experiences with the people chasing the rights in a satirical film called Rossini. Directors considered for the project included Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Ridley Scott and Tim Burton.) (Now the Tim Burton version I would love to have seen)
3.5 cushions.
Here's the trailer
7.2.07
Watching: Cabin Fever
Cabin Fever is one of the great, underrated horror films of the 21st century. It moves the genre on from the navel-gazing 90s by finding a new, horrible kind of monster at the same time as paying respects to longstanding horror conventions.
Directed by Eli Roth, who has since gone on to do Hostel (and Hostel II) and who is now working on the latest Stephen King adaptation Cell, Cabin Fever begins with the classic horror premise of a group of fresh faced college students heading off to a cabin in the woods. After dealing with the somewhat odd locals at a store nearby, things go pearshaped pretty quickly when one of the group stumbles upon a hermit in the woods with a particularly nasty flesh-eating virus, who asks for help.
This is the "monster" that I like so much in this film. A simple, particularly gory and horrifying virus that quickly leads to bloody open sores/wounds and the coughing and spluttering of blood everywhere imaginable. Given the rise of AIDS, Ebola, SARS and bird flu in recent years and the general climate of fear and mistrust in the world, this is truly a 21st century villain.
The reaction of our heroes to this menace is equally interesting - from violent opposition to helping the infected to trying to help them as much as possible, at the risk of infection.
The main characters for the most part aren't that sympathetic - the character I liked the most was easily the biggest dick of all of them but seemed a lot more real than his broad brushstrokes companions.
When they arrive at the cabin, he wanders off with a rifle, prompting this exchange:
Ultimately, the characters don't matter too much - they're strong enough to carry your interest in the story, believable enough to understand why they do what they do (although there are still moments of "why would they do that?" - which is always easier to think from the comfort of the couch than if you were actually in that situation) and have strong enough dialogue to let you know that you are watching something more than a few notches above your standard young-pretty-people-in-the-woods horror flick.
Throw in wild dogs and scary redneck/hillbillies and you have a cracking tale with enough visceral shocks to make David Cronenberg happy.
Let's not forget also that this is a pretty funny film - there's a line early in the film (at the store) that has a great pay off right at the end.
(And let's not forget Pancakes!!!! :)
Here's the trailer - 4.5 cushions.
Directed by Eli Roth, who has since gone on to do Hostel (and Hostel II) and who is now working on the latest Stephen King adaptation Cell, Cabin Fever begins with the classic horror premise of a group of fresh faced college students heading off to a cabin in the woods. After dealing with the somewhat odd locals at a store nearby, things go pearshaped pretty quickly when one of the group stumbles upon a hermit in the woods with a particularly nasty flesh-eating virus, who asks for help.
This is the "monster" that I like so much in this film. A simple, particularly gory and horrifying virus that quickly leads to bloody open sores/wounds and the coughing and spluttering of blood everywhere imaginable. Given the rise of AIDS, Ebola, SARS and bird flu in recent years and the general climate of fear and mistrust in the world, this is truly a 21st century villain.
The reaction of our heroes to this menace is equally interesting - from violent opposition to helping the infected to trying to help them as much as possible, at the risk of infection.
The main characters for the most part aren't that sympathetic - the character I liked the most was easily the biggest dick of all of them but seemed a lot more real than his broad brushstrokes companions.
When they arrive at the cabin, he wanders off with a rifle, prompting this exchange:
Karen: Bert, what the hell is that?
Bert: Huh? Oh, I'm gonna go shoot some squirrels.
Paul: Why would you wanna kill squirrels?
Bert: 'cause they're gay.
Karen: Bert, don't be a fucking retard.
Bert: I'm kidding. I don't care if they're gay or straight, I'll kill 'em either way.
Ultimately, the characters don't matter too much - they're strong enough to carry your interest in the story, believable enough to understand why they do what they do (although there are still moments of "why would they do that?" - which is always easier to think from the comfort of the couch than if you were actually in that situation) and have strong enough dialogue to let you know that you are watching something more than a few notches above your standard young-pretty-people-in-the-woods horror flick.
Throw in wild dogs and scary redneck/hillbillies and you have a cracking tale with enough visceral shocks to make David Cronenberg happy.
Let's not forget also that this is a pretty funny film - there's a line early in the film (at the store) that has a great pay off right at the end.
(And let's not forget Pancakes!!!! :)
Here's the trailer - 4.5 cushions.
6.2.07
Learning: songs
So after trawling the web and iTunes and looking at my current skills realistically, I've settled on the follow songs to learn first up.
Neil Young - Heart of Gold
Tom Petty (as covered by Johnny Cash) - I won't back down
The Cruel Sea - Down Below
The Dandy Warhols - Godless
Dinosaur Jr - Freak Scene
Chris Isaak - Blue Spanish Sky
(Where possible, I've put videoclips for these songs - uh - down below)(Ironically except for the actual song, Down Below.)(Oh, and the reason there is a woman practicing pole dancing to the Chris Isaak song is that it was a choice between this video and footage taken with a mobile phone video camera with bad sound. )
Anyway, the main reason I've chosen these particular songs is that they are all fairly straight forward to play - no overly complicated chords or wildly varying chord combinations, simple enough rhythms and several of them will also force me along in learning the F chord. (As well as the F#m).
For those who don't know much about guitar, the F (and F family) are barre chords - chords where you use your index finger to press down on all six strings in one fret, effectively shortening the neck of the guitar. This has the effect of moving the chord down a tone (I think). (Update - Ok, thanks Len, it's actually raising them a semitone or tone)
So if you are playing a standard E chord, you move each note towards you one fret and hold your finger down on the first fret. This is something that I've found far too difficult for the better part of 20 years - more a matter of not persisting than anything - but I've bitten the bullet now and slowly, step by step, seem to be making some progress.
Getting to the point where you fingers just automatically form the position is what I'm aiming for I'd say.
So I had a nice play last night, Godless in particular is great to jam along to (and if you turn the music up loud enough, you actually sound like you're rocking :)
There are also some simple riffs in Heart of Gold and I won't back down that I'm getting the hang of as well.
(I also chose these songs because they suit my voice and I'd like to be able to sing them - but combining singing and playing is a few steps away yet)
Neil Young - Heart of Gold
Tom Petty (via Johnny Cash) - I won't back down
The Cruel Sea - Down Below (Couldn't find a listenable version online)
Dandy Warhols - Godless
Dinosaur Jr - Freak Scene
Chris Isaak - Big Blue Spanish Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY8WHR5QPE4
Neil Young - Heart of Gold
Tom Petty (as covered by Johnny Cash) - I won't back down
The Cruel Sea - Down Below
The Dandy Warhols - Godless
Dinosaur Jr - Freak Scene
Chris Isaak - Blue Spanish Sky
(Where possible, I've put videoclips for these songs - uh - down below)(Ironically except for the actual song, Down Below.)(Oh, and the reason there is a woman practicing pole dancing to the Chris Isaak song is that it was a choice between this video and footage taken with a mobile phone video camera with bad sound. )
Anyway, the main reason I've chosen these particular songs is that they are all fairly straight forward to play - no overly complicated chords or wildly varying chord combinations, simple enough rhythms and several of them will also force me along in learning the F chord. (As well as the F#m).
For those who don't know much about guitar, the F (and F family) are barre chords - chords where you use your index finger to press down on all six strings in one fret, effectively shortening the neck of the guitar. This has the effect of moving the chord down a tone (I think). (Update - Ok, thanks Len, it's actually raising them a semitone or tone)
So if you are playing a standard E chord, you move each note towards you one fret and hold your finger down on the first fret. This is something that I've found far too difficult for the better part of 20 years - more a matter of not persisting than anything - but I've bitten the bullet now and slowly, step by step, seem to be making some progress.
Getting to the point where you fingers just automatically form the position is what I'm aiming for I'd say.
So I had a nice play last night, Godless in particular is great to jam along to (and if you turn the music up loud enough, you actually sound like you're rocking :)
There are also some simple riffs in Heart of Gold and I won't back down that I'm getting the hang of as well.
(I also chose these songs because they suit my voice and I'd like to be able to sing them - but combining singing and playing is a few steps away yet)
Neil Young - Heart of Gold
Tom Petty (via Johnny Cash) - I won't back down
The Cruel Sea - Down Below (Couldn't find a listenable version online)
Dandy Warhols - Godless
Dinosaur Jr - Freak Scene
Chris Isaak - Big Blue Spanish Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY8WHR5QPE4
5.2.07
Preparing : My radio show
For those who came in late - I do a weekly two hour radio show on the local community radio station here in Canberra, 2xxfm. (I'd like to change the name to XXfm but that's another story).
I've been a fan of community radio since before I knew what it even was. I remember times sitting at home in Melbourne in the mid 80's twirling the radio dial and on occasion coming across a faint station playing all these songs that I'd never heard of. It was a couple of years before I realised that these must have been 3RRRfm and 3PBSfm - two of the coolest radio stations anywhere. (This is a measurable fact, by the way)
Community radio to me has always been about the music first and foremost - the talk and other content is great as well but it was (and still is) through community radio that I have been exposed to virtually all the great bands that I know and love today.
(For those reading this from somewhere else, community radio in Australia is non-corporate, independent, non-government, volunteer run radio)
Anyway, my show is in the drive-time slot (4-6pm) and is of a generalist rather than specialist nature. XX aims to play music that people don't generally hear elsewhere (ie overly commercial music) but beyond that, announcers have free reign. (We have to be mindful of the community sector code of practice as well as playing a certain proportion of Australian and Canberra music as well).
We have two cd players on the desk in the studio and generally speaking it's a matter of cueing up a track on one while the other is playing.
Unless, of course, you burn your songs onto one or two cds (I usually need about 1 and a bit) and you just leave them in the machines.
Selection of tunes is the key thing there - being the music junkie that I am, there are usually a few new cds floating around each week so I like to find something interesting on these, even a couple of tracks if they are particularly noticable.
From here, I like to mix it up a little - cool songs from good albums from the last 6 months or so, a few more from the last decade and generally always a few old school alterna-classics from the 70's and 80's.
Iconic English DJ John Peel had a philosophy with his show that he'd play some songs that he knew people would like and some songs that he thought they'd like.
You can see listings of the tracks I've selected on the (rather neglected) Monday Sunset blog.
(by the way, that isn't the official 2XXfm logo at the top of the page, it's just one I've been playing with. The existing logo hasn't changed in the better part of a decade to my knowledge and I think a revamp is in order)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
