It is part of the human psyche to belong to the group. This can be seen in so many contexts. It is what drives sports. How many times do we hear the term "my team" in casual conversation. Of course this does not mean that you are actually a member of the team (although you may be a club member) but that you identify with that group of people. It also occurs in work places, where people of like mind or values gather around coffee or lunch. Or it may simply be that you are part of a particular work team. This all speaks of the human desire to belong.
The same happens with churches, political parties, hobbies or social divisions. We all congregate, either physically or now online into groups of people with which you somehow identify.
This often then leads to cognitive dissonance. You will then try to justify your membership but creating stories that justify your membership of that group. Take political parties for instance. Most people adhere to a particular political party because. It may be that your parents had that affiliation, it may be that your friends had that affiliation or it may be that at one time they stood for something that you supported then justifies all of the other views in your mind post adherence.
However there are the ideologues who hold a particular position and then proceed to justify it to the point of irrationality.
Now here is the problem. I am a Christian and as such hold to a particular moral position on many matters such as abortion, euthanasia, LGBT, as well as issues of social justice such as immigration, welfare, health care and the like. I also hold particular political views on such things as the economy, foreign affairs for instance. I then have to weigh up all of these views and make a decision based on that parties views on all of those issues. So then, how do I proceed based on my views of particular policies.
Here lies the problem. No party aligns with my views so who do I support on what is the basis of that support. If I am a blind follower then the choice is easy, simply support my team, game over. On the other hand if I want to make an intelligent rational decision I want to make a decision based on my views but this is not an easy decision.
Let us say we are looking at a particular candidates, A and B. Candidate A supports my stance on welfare immigration, the economy and foreign relations and has a proven record of supporting the disadvantaged but has differing views on abortion. Candidate B is a misogynist, racist, and wants to cut welfare, but is anti abortion. How do I choose. Lets say that candidate B will be in a position to influence policy on welfare, foreign affairs but not the policy on abortion. This is the problem facing many people.
Do I follow the heard or do I make a choice based on my conscience. To me the choice is clear.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Streaming Piracy and the Music Business
The music business has changed dramatically since my youth when my collection consisted of circular vinyl disks with a groove on either side. Although I did have some of those shellac disks as well. First came the cries that the reel to reel tape would kill the music industry. The the claim that cassette tapes would spell its death knell, which prompted a surcharge on cassette tapes. That worked - not! The of course came the writable CD followed by Kaza and now bit torrent and news groups.
After this plethora of claims that the music industry is dying what is the current state of the industry? Well, simply look at the income of the top artists and you tell me. However....do you want to know what is really killing the industry?
My contention is not that the sharing technologies are killing the industry but that technologies are giving the industry new life. Sure there are issues but not with file sharing but with other aspects of the industry. The pop industry has never been in a worse state. Singers no longer have to sing. With the real time processing available singer don't really have to sing, al they need to do is point their mouth towards the mike, utter some non-descript warble and out some some nicely processed silky smooth sound. Singers no longer have to sing.
On the other hand real music, from real musicians is prospering. With the ability to self publish independent artists are prospering. You tube, Spotify, Apple music are making it easier than ever to good artists to be heard. Even good mainstream musicians who still perform such as Elton John, Dianna Krall for instance are doing as well as ever. Not to mention younger artists such as Megan Washington and Ingrid Michaelson who are prospering on a wave of well earned popularity.
Whilst people are bemoaning the death of music due to technology I see nothing but blue skies ahead for talented musicians who are using technology as an enabler.
After this plethora of claims that the music industry is dying what is the current state of the industry? Well, simply look at the income of the top artists and you tell me. However....do you want to know what is really killing the industry?
My contention is not that the sharing technologies are killing the industry but that technologies are giving the industry new life. Sure there are issues but not with file sharing but with other aspects of the industry. The pop industry has never been in a worse state. Singers no longer have to sing. With the real time processing available singer don't really have to sing, al they need to do is point their mouth towards the mike, utter some non-descript warble and out some some nicely processed silky smooth sound. Singers no longer have to sing.
On the other hand real music, from real musicians is prospering. With the ability to self publish independent artists are prospering. You tube, Spotify, Apple music are making it easier than ever to good artists to be heard. Even good mainstream musicians who still perform such as Elton John, Dianna Krall for instance are doing as well as ever. Not to mention younger artists such as Megan Washington and Ingrid Michaelson who are prospering on a wave of well earned popularity.
Whilst people are bemoaning the death of music due to technology I see nothing but blue skies ahead for talented musicians who are using technology as an enabler.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
The Hobbit - book vs the film, and the winner is...
Now that we have seen the last of The Hobbit films there have been many and varied reactions to them and some more or less informed. Although I am not a Tolkien scholar and I am not the most knowledgeable on the Tolkien universe I am well versed on Tolkien matters and I come to the debate with more than average knowledge and my sole claim to qualification is that I have an opinion. I leave it to others to judge whether this opinion has any value. I do not want to appear to be a Jackson apologist since there are many things about both TLOTR and TH films that I think he got plain wrong but that is for another time.
I suppose the two biggest criticisms are that they are making 3 movies from a small children's book and that the tone of the movies is a far cry from that of the book.
Let me deal with the second first since the answer to that leads onto the first point. When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit it was merely a children's story that was loosely connected with the Middle Earth mythology. I think the best way to think of it is as a retelling of a story that came from the mythology and was once within that mythology but was told by someone with the sole purpose in mind of entertaining children rather than to recount part of the history of Middle Earth. Thus the frame work of the book is separated from the original history by several degrees. This can be seen in the legends of King Arthur. There may or may not have been a historical figure, but stories of this figure had been passed down by story telling and maybe by written stories. These original stories have long since passed but the history of the figure continued until after my generations of retelling the legend, being changed in each retelling, barely resembles the original. It is now impossible to piece together the truth from what remains.
Now in The Hobbit it appears that the original story was in no way suitable for children so the characters and events were re-told in such a way as to change the actual facts of the story, but in any case the story may have come to the author from the accounts written by Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, and other sources via various paths and needed to be brought together into a coherent narrative. It is also important to note that events are never reported consistently by all witnesses. There are always minor variations since people mis-see, forget and details become distorted over time. These variations have to be reconciled by the writer in order to make a coherent narrative.
Given that, it is likely that The Hobbit that we read (within the framework that Tolkien created) is but one version of the original tale. Indeed Tolkien himself was in the process of re-writing The Hobbit from a different perspective to make it more "grown up" and to fit better within the overall Middle Earth mythology.
Now we come to Jackson's retelling of the story. No only do we have the original story which provided the core narrative but we also have the wider implications regarding the history of the ring, the rise of Sauron, the involvement of The White Council (including Gandalf) with the banishment of Sauron, the gathering of the ring wraiths, the history of the rings (It would have been nice to see some more references to the creation of the rings but alas that material was not available to Jackson) much of which is in the appendices to the LOTR.
If Jackson wanted to fit TH into the world in which the LOTR resides then he had no choice but to rewrite it in the way that he did. Having decided to do this then the rewrite had to depart more significantly from the text of TH, more so than he doe with the LOTR. To do this his retelling had to me more Jackson than was the case in the LOTR. I believe that this explains much of the difference between the tone of the LOTR and TH movies. Was he successful? Well, I have mixed feelings. I think he was in many ways but I think that the movies seemed to have less space to develop the world of Middle Earth than he did in the LOTR. This led to a denser narrative and less moments where the characters could be explored further. Having 15 main characters did not help either. The nine in the LOTR was bad enough. The inclusion of the appendix material swelled the story so that it was bursting at the seams. You really had 2 stories being told at once and it was not obvious except to the die hard fans how these were linked. The two EE released so far no not really add that much to the story either. I think in part Jackson can be forgiven since he could not use anything outside of teh LOTR and TH so all of the additional material which could have tied in with the stories was out of bounds. The Tolkien Estate is to blame for that sine they refuse to license anything other than what was already licensed.
So for the length. Three films, too many? No. Absolutely not. What we have was compressed to fit into the films so far. There is much more but with the limitation of the licensed material and the patience of the general audience he had no choice but to limit it to three long films but there was certainly enough material to fill three films, no doubt in my mind.
I look forward to seeing what PJ includes in TBOTFA EE. I eagerly await the Bluray boxed set with 4 commentaries and EE.
I suppose the two biggest criticisms are that they are making 3 movies from a small children's book and that the tone of the movies is a far cry from that of the book.
Let me deal with the second first since the answer to that leads onto the first point. When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit it was merely a children's story that was loosely connected with the Middle Earth mythology. I think the best way to think of it is as a retelling of a story that came from the mythology and was once within that mythology but was told by someone with the sole purpose in mind of entertaining children rather than to recount part of the history of Middle Earth. Thus the frame work of the book is separated from the original history by several degrees. This can be seen in the legends of King Arthur. There may or may not have been a historical figure, but stories of this figure had been passed down by story telling and maybe by written stories. These original stories have long since passed but the history of the figure continued until after my generations of retelling the legend, being changed in each retelling, barely resembles the original. It is now impossible to piece together the truth from what remains.
Now in The Hobbit it appears that the original story was in no way suitable for children so the characters and events were re-told in such a way as to change the actual facts of the story, but in any case the story may have come to the author from the accounts written by Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, and other sources via various paths and needed to be brought together into a coherent narrative. It is also important to note that events are never reported consistently by all witnesses. There are always minor variations since people mis-see, forget and details become distorted over time. These variations have to be reconciled by the writer in order to make a coherent narrative.
Given that, it is likely that The Hobbit that we read (within the framework that Tolkien created) is but one version of the original tale. Indeed Tolkien himself was in the process of re-writing The Hobbit from a different perspective to make it more "grown up" and to fit better within the overall Middle Earth mythology.
Now we come to Jackson's retelling of the story. No only do we have the original story which provided the core narrative but we also have the wider implications regarding the history of the ring, the rise of Sauron, the involvement of The White Council (including Gandalf) with the banishment of Sauron, the gathering of the ring wraiths, the history of the rings (It would have been nice to see some more references to the creation of the rings but alas that material was not available to Jackson) much of which is in the appendices to the LOTR.
If Jackson wanted to fit TH into the world in which the LOTR resides then he had no choice but to rewrite it in the way that he did. Having decided to do this then the rewrite had to depart more significantly from the text of TH, more so than he doe with the LOTR. To do this his retelling had to me more Jackson than was the case in the LOTR. I believe that this explains much of the difference between the tone of the LOTR and TH movies. Was he successful? Well, I have mixed feelings. I think he was in many ways but I think that the movies seemed to have less space to develop the world of Middle Earth than he did in the LOTR. This led to a denser narrative and less moments where the characters could be explored further. Having 15 main characters did not help either. The nine in the LOTR was bad enough. The inclusion of the appendix material swelled the story so that it was bursting at the seams. You really had 2 stories being told at once and it was not obvious except to the die hard fans how these were linked. The two EE released so far no not really add that much to the story either. I think in part Jackson can be forgiven since he could not use anything outside of teh LOTR and TH so all of the additional material which could have tied in with the stories was out of bounds. The Tolkien Estate is to blame for that sine they refuse to license anything other than what was already licensed.
So for the length. Three films, too many? No. Absolutely not. What we have was compressed to fit into the films so far. There is much more but with the limitation of the licensed material and the patience of the general audience he had no choice but to limit it to three long films but there was certainly enough material to fill three films, no doubt in my mind.
I look forward to seeing what PJ includes in TBOTFA EE. I eagerly await the Bluray boxed set with 4 commentaries and EE.
Friday, November 7, 2014
A new album and a new perspective
The Idea Of North , an Australian a cappella group has just released a new album, Anthology. I was listening in Spotify and it is up to their usual standard and is a wonderful compilation of styles.
The last track, which I have always loved is Windmills of Your Mind. As I was listening the song just gripped me and moved me deeply. I know that this can be a very personal song but I just seemed to echo my feelings at the moment.
The song speaks to be of the transitory nature of our existence. We live our lives from generation to generation and seldom leave more than a pencil mark that is soon erased. The cycle of life no sooner starts than it seems to draw to a close. It occurs to me that the companion that we travel through life with is perhaps our most treasured possession and we should cherish them, not cast them aside as some disposable consumable.
The album is an anthology of their music form their earliest days to more recent recordings. If you are into a cappella music then this album will truly delight you.
The last track, which I have always loved is Windmills of Your Mind. As I was listening the song just gripped me and moved me deeply. I know that this can be a very personal song but I just seemed to echo my feelings at the moment.
The song speaks to be of the transitory nature of our existence. We live our lives from generation to generation and seldom leave more than a pencil mark that is soon erased. The cycle of life no sooner starts than it seems to draw to a close. It occurs to me that the companion that we travel through life with is perhaps our most treasured possession and we should cherish them, not cast them aside as some disposable consumable.
The album is an anthology of their music form their earliest days to more recent recordings. If you are into a cappella music then this album will truly delight you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)