Check out: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VKL-8FJlFS0 and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7kefYrJQ9tc
I adore jazz and wish they still played music like this in clubs today. I know there are some jazz clubs in Manchester but it's still a bit of a fringe scene. It needs a revival.
Saturday 22 November 2008
Tuesday 18 November 2008
The secret to everlasting happiness
Please listen to this song. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9ZZgDqzAg
It made me smile, no mean feat considering how fed up I am today. Had a complete energy slump after working on my feature last week. Better get used to it, that's how it goes.
The lyrics are unashamedly misogynistic but it's such a bouncy little number that in spite of myself I was laughing when I heard it.
I particularly like the dialogue between the band halfway through the song:
"Hey man! I saw your wife today!"
"Yeah?"
"Yeah, she's ugly!"
"She sure can cook though!" Brilliant.
I'd be very interested to see what you gentlemen think. If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, should you never make a pretty woman your wife?
Does wife have to be synonymous with doormat/frump/cook/reproductive vessel? Is a woman seen as a bit risky or threatening when she can cook, kick ass in the boardroom, raise a family, do the lady on the streets and a freak in the bed thing, and still look fabulous? Or is upsetting of the mother/whore dichotomy still a bit too unsettling for some men?
Why are women sometimes seen as one thing or another? ie in the song, an ugly woman is pitted as a safe bet, cooking meals on time and "giving peace of mind". However, a pretty woman can "make a man look small, and very often is his downfall."
In other words, you can't be an attractive woman and have morals - if you're attractive you're a hussy. Only the downtrodden wife in the kitchen is left - but that's ok because no other man will look at her. She could be a right floozy for all we know! But because she's been labelled as ugly the singer has out this possibility firmly out of his mind.
Both women have been objectified and put in boxes. One is labelled 'sexual object'. One is labelled 'wife/mother'. When did the two become so mutually exclusive?
Some comments please?
Gender politics never cease to bemuse me. But I love them, and I'm glad I share this planet with the intriguing species that is men.
It made me smile, no mean feat considering how fed up I am today. Had a complete energy slump after working on my feature last week. Better get used to it, that's how it goes.
The lyrics are unashamedly misogynistic but it's such a bouncy little number that in spite of myself I was laughing when I heard it.
I particularly like the dialogue between the band halfway through the song:
"Hey man! I saw your wife today!"
"Yeah?"
"Yeah, she's ugly!"
"She sure can cook though!" Brilliant.
I'd be very interested to see what you gentlemen think. If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, should you never make a pretty woman your wife?
Does wife have to be synonymous with doormat/frump/cook/reproductive vessel? Is a woman seen as a bit risky or threatening when she can cook, kick ass in the boardroom, raise a family, do the lady on the streets and a freak in the bed thing, and still look fabulous? Or is upsetting of the mother/whore dichotomy still a bit too unsettling for some men?
Why are women sometimes seen as one thing or another? ie in the song, an ugly woman is pitted as a safe bet, cooking meals on time and "giving peace of mind". However, a pretty woman can "make a man look small, and very often is his downfall."
In other words, you can't be an attractive woman and have morals - if you're attractive you're a hussy. Only the downtrodden wife in the kitchen is left - but that's ok because no other man will look at her. She could be a right floozy for all we know! But because she's been labelled as ugly the singer has out this possibility firmly out of his mind.
Both women have been objectified and put in boxes. One is labelled 'sexual object'. One is labelled 'wife/mother'. When did the two become so mutually exclusive?
Some comments please?
Gender politics never cease to bemuse me. But I love them, and I'm glad I share this planet with the intriguing species that is men.
Wednesday 5 November 2008
Andrew Keen: the anti-Christ of Silicone Valley
Evenin' all.
Just listened to a fabulous discussion on Radio 4. Please please check it out, I think you'll find it genuinely interesting in view of everything that was said yesterday in our splendiferous presentations. http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/
It's a bloke called Andrew Keen, who has been called the anti-Christ of Silicone Valley.
I wish I'd heard the programme 48 hours earlier, as it would have made a really interesting counter argument to our digital journalism presentation, which basically argued in favour of the web 2.0 revolution.
However, I am now genuinely confused as to what I think and would value some brainwashing in either direction. Honestly do have a foot in both camps. I hate sitting on the fence, it's for wimps and I'm getting splinters!!
Andrew was saying that what we have in front of us now is cultural chaos and moral decay. He said the culture of blogging, citizen journalism and general plethora of online communities is replacing the wisdom of traditional experts with the innocence of online amateurs.
Apparently, it's "democracy gone mad."
Keen sees the burgeoning communties as a cacophony of worthless opinion. Everyone is talking simultaneously, with no-one listening to anyone else. However, is it just a case of those voices were always there, but there was no medium for them? Perhaps Keen doesn't like that someone can immediately, publicly retort to articles now, eloquently or not. Not sure what his background is. Is he a journo, does anyone know?
He is dismissive of what he calls a "pervasive culture of digital narcissism", with everyone scrambling to survive, spouting any amount of nonsense to do so.
It raised in my mind an interesting tide of change that Clare mentioned in the presentation sessions yesterday - one that says content may no longer necessarily be king, and it's all about generating rapport, discussion and honesty. This disregard for content is what really needles Keen, and he fears severe cultural consequences.
Anyway...not much point me saying any more when you can read the thing yourselves. I'm taking to this stuff with the ferocity of a convert.
Tara
Just listened to a fabulous discussion on Radio 4. Please please check it out, I think you'll find it genuinely interesting in view of everything that was said yesterday in our splendiferous presentations. http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/
It's a bloke called Andrew Keen, who has been called the anti-Christ of Silicone Valley.
I wish I'd heard the programme 48 hours earlier, as it would have made a really interesting counter argument to our digital journalism presentation, which basically argued in favour of the web 2.0 revolution.
However, I am now genuinely confused as to what I think and would value some brainwashing in either direction. Honestly do have a foot in both camps. I hate sitting on the fence, it's for wimps and I'm getting splinters!!
Andrew was saying that what we have in front of us now is cultural chaos and moral decay. He said the culture of blogging, citizen journalism and general plethora of online communities is replacing the wisdom of traditional experts with the innocence of online amateurs.
Apparently, it's "democracy gone mad."
Keen sees the burgeoning communties as a cacophony of worthless opinion. Everyone is talking simultaneously, with no-one listening to anyone else. However, is it just a case of those voices were always there, but there was no medium for them? Perhaps Keen doesn't like that someone can immediately, publicly retort to articles now, eloquently or not. Not sure what his background is. Is he a journo, does anyone know?
He is dismissive of what he calls a "pervasive culture of digital narcissism", with everyone scrambling to survive, spouting any amount of nonsense to do so.
It raised in my mind an interesting tide of change that Clare mentioned in the presentation sessions yesterday - one that says content may no longer necessarily be king, and it's all about generating rapport, discussion and honesty. This disregard for content is what really needles Keen, and he fears severe cultural consequences.
Anyway...not much point me saying any more when you can read the thing yourselves. I'm taking to this stuff with the ferocity of a convert.
Tara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
