Because apparently writing 2.5k words earlier today wasn't enough...
One thing that's really been annoying me recently is our nation's ridiculous tendency to preserve all the old buildings - castles, stately homes etc - to be looked at (but not touched! You're grubby fingers might destroy this delicate 1000 year old wall!). Perhaps the first time I this bothered me was watching an episode of Grand Designs a couple of years back when a man fought for months for the permission to renovate a utterly decrepit, mostly-collapsed old keep. He turned it into an absolutely fantastic B&B that was respectful of the original building whilst making it comfortable. No one cared about the old building, it was in the middle of nowhere and the only thing preventing it from being refurbished sooner was the ridiculously stringent rules on listed buildings.
I find our tendency to elevate old things to untouchable status disrespectful of the past. You might not have realised it, but these buildings were lived in by real people. They were never intended to be pieces of history, and they should stay that way.
Most of the castles are pretty much in ruins anyway. There's not much to look at. There used to be an outer wall, but it was demolished during the Civil War, you say? Bollocks, I want to see it. Faithfully re-construct it. Once Britain's sorted its finances, I would actually like to see the old crumbling ruins knocked down, the faithfully rebuilt, using the same materials in the same design. After that, either someone could live in it, or it could be opened to the public; either way would be better.
Of course, that raises the massive debate over privatising our new old buildings. God knows we kicked up enough fuss over the privatisation of our forests (though that was justified). It might seem strange, but I would prefer to see these buildings sealed off to the public if it means they are actually being used for what they were intended, rather than just sitting forlornly like a museum piece.
Windsor castle is a model example. It's lived in by the actual royal family, is in great shape, but it also (mostly) open to the public. It's a perfect compromise that retains the integrity of such an awesome looking building. I've linked it before, but it looks so spectacular its worth another eye-full.
I don't think I've quite put into words what I want to express. It's like seeing a magnificent tiger in a cage, or a classic car sitting lonely in a garage, to be looked at but never enjoyed as it should be.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Saturday, 7 May 2011
An Outrageous Prediction
Here's one for you. Following on from yesterday's free will post, in which I decided that everything is already pre-determined and we are merely following train tracks, I will make an outrageous prediction: eventually (and we're talking a looong way ahead), once we've worked out how everything works, a computer program will be designed, using the laws of physics, that can compute the entire universe. This has two huge implications.
1) What this amounts to is time travel. We will be able move the simulation forwards (or backwards), seeing events as they will unfold. I can't even speculate about how being able to view the future would change the pre-defined path concept. Maybe it would create a loop, signalling the end of everything. Who knows.
2) If we can perfectly simulate the universe, then in starting the program we are effectively creating life. (Yes - this is very Matrix, or numerous other sci-fi stories. How do we know we're not in a progam? Spooky!) If the program can replicate consciousness, then the simulated people would experience consciousness in the same way that we do.
Let me know what you think. Hopefully this is a more fun thought than yesterday's blog.
1) What this amounts to is time travel. We will be able move the simulation forwards (or backwards), seeing events as they will unfold. I can't even speculate about how being able to view the future would change the pre-defined path concept. Maybe it would create a loop, signalling the end of everything. Who knows.
2) If we can perfectly simulate the universe, then in starting the program we are effectively creating life. (Yes - this is very Matrix, or numerous other sci-fi stories. How do we know we're not in a progam? Spooky!) If the program can replicate consciousness, then the simulated people would experience consciousness in the same way that we do.
Let me know what you think. Hopefully this is a more fun thought than yesterday's blog.
Friday, 6 May 2011
On Free Will
The idea that we, as individuals and as a collective, aren't in control of our destiny is a scary one, but one we must consider. I will shortly outline my thoughts on why it may not be true, but first we must define Free Will, which is being able to act unencumbered by external forces; we freely make all our own decisions.
There is a well known theory of the multiverse, which is that there exist an infinite number of universes in which things are much the same, albeit with differences on a small scale - the decision to go to this university or that, to ask out a girl or not, etc. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why, if I have an alternate self in an alternate universe, would I make different decisions? If the constraints, pro and cons, levels of willpower and so forth, are exactly the same, I would make the same decision in universe 2 as I would in universe 1.
History is made up of untold billions of events, not just human but also physical - earthquakes, solar events etc - all of which would be made the same way. The laws of physics are unchanging and consistent, with ultimate knowledge anything and everything can be predicted. If history unfolds under pre-determined conditions, then it follows that the present - right now, me, you, everything - is unfolding in a predetermined way.
Even the decision to act spontaneously is a result of thinking about free will, and those thoughts are triggered by something else. We can do what we like, but we can't choose to do what we like.
However, is any of this important? It still feels like we're in control of our destinies, and the choices we make are down to our own personality traits and characteristics; it is our own unique nebulous consciousnesses that govern our actions (even if those traits are themselves pre-determined).
Someone prove me wrong please, I don't like this. Also this should also be much longer, but I've a seminar to attend.
There is a well known theory of the multiverse, which is that there exist an infinite number of universes in which things are much the same, albeit with differences on a small scale - the decision to go to this university or that, to ask out a girl or not, etc. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why, if I have an alternate self in an alternate universe, would I make different decisions? If the constraints, pro and cons, levels of willpower and so forth, are exactly the same, I would make the same decision in universe 2 as I would in universe 1.
History is made up of untold billions of events, not just human but also physical - earthquakes, solar events etc - all of which would be made the same way. The laws of physics are unchanging and consistent, with ultimate knowledge anything and everything can be predicted. If history unfolds under pre-determined conditions, then it follows that the present - right now, me, you, everything - is unfolding in a predetermined way.
Even the decision to act spontaneously is a result of thinking about free will, and those thoughts are triggered by something else. We can do what we like, but we can't choose to do what we like.
However, is any of this important? It still feels like we're in control of our destinies, and the choices we make are down to our own personality traits and characteristics; it is our own unique nebulous consciousnesses that govern our actions (even if those traits are themselves pre-determined).
Someone prove me wrong please, I don't like this. Also this should also be much longer, but I've a seminar to attend.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Ray Hudson: Football Commentator Extraordinaire
I watch a lot of football videos on YouTube and the like, and occasionally the video is taken from an American sports channel, and the 'colour man' is a really odd Geordie bloke. For a while I thought he was pretty much an irritant, and felt sorry for the main commentator (who could hardly get a word in edgeways). It was like the channel thought, those British are good at soccer, let's get one of them in, and ended up with what sounds like a drunk guy off the street.
How wrong I was; the commentator, Ray Hudson, is a verifiable genius, and it was a masterstoke by the television network to sign him up. He describes goals in the most overblown, ridiculous yet fantastic fashion, coming out with gems such as 'that was a goal of orgy-astic proportions!', and later in the same game describes the Madrid defence as being 'stretched out like Spandex on Miami beaches'. I've rounded up most of his best moments for your listening pleasure.
Barca 5-0 Madrid
For those of you that can't be bothered to watch 7 minutes highlights include: 00.5, 2.40, 3.30 (bio-rhythms like a peregrine falcon!) 4.06-4.26, 4.50, random squawk.
Ray Hudson Hates Celebrities and tennis players
More on tennis players
Ray Hudson has an orgasm
Best of compilation (the 'sledghammer' scene that he mentions at 0.40 can be seen here. It's an odd comparison to say the least)
Another one
There are countless more gems to be dug up. He might not be very professional and grammar seems like an unnecessary distraction, but I'd take him over any other commentator currently working. Apart from Stuart Hall (A Shakespearean Ray Hudson)
x
How wrong I was; the commentator, Ray Hudson, is a verifiable genius, and it was a masterstoke by the television network to sign him up. He describes goals in the most overblown, ridiculous yet fantastic fashion, coming out with gems such as 'that was a goal of orgy-astic proportions!', and later in the same game describes the Madrid defence as being 'stretched out like Spandex on Miami beaches'. I've rounded up most of his best moments for your listening pleasure.
Barca 5-0 Madrid
For those of you that can't be bothered to watch 7 minutes highlights include: 00.5, 2.40, 3.30 (bio-rhythms like a peregrine falcon!) 4.06-4.26, 4.50, random squawk.
Ray Hudson Hates Celebrities and tennis players
More on tennis players
Ray Hudson has an orgasm
Best of compilation (the 'sledghammer' scene that he mentions at 0.40 can be seen here. It's an odd comparison to say the least)
Another one
There are countless more gems to be dug up. He might not be very professional and grammar seems like an unnecessary distraction, but I'd take him over any other commentator currently working. Apart from Stuart Hall (A Shakespearean Ray Hudson)
x
Monday, 25 April 2011
Mixing Cereals: A Beginner's Guide
Here's something a bit left-field: a guide to the misunderstood art of mixing cereals, in the format of a Q&A session.
What the fuck is mixing cereals? Some new kind of indie DJ technique?
No, you tit, it's mixing cereals, like for breakfast and stuff.
Umm...why?
Because cereals are social animals, and work better together than in isolation. Advantages are numerous. The chocolate milk properties of Coco-Pops, for instance, make most cereals more interesting. It also lets you feel less guilty about filling yourself with intensely sugary and salty cereals by tempering them with the 'healthy/ier' cereals, like Fruit 'n' Fibre, or the ones you can convince yourself aren't that unhealthy because no sugar is mentioned in the name, like Cheerios.
You're a strange, strange person.
I know, get over it.
Okay then, hit me with some of your best combinations.
Possibly the best thing about mixing cereals is that it turns that most inedible (yet annoyingly...err...energy-ific? Energetic? Energising?) of cereals, porridge, into something tolerable. I'm not saying it's the most delicious thing in the world by any means, but try sprinkling a load of Honey Nut Cornflakes on your porridge to make it less baby-pukeish (it will look like baby puke though). Most cereals are fine, but there is one massive exception: never ever EVER put Coco-Pops in porridge, it is unquestionably the worst combination ever, and mixes about as well as oil and water. If you're in it and the oil is on fire. With sharks.
Anything else?
So far it's been fairly Marxist - the base-superstructure approach to breakfeast (that was a typo, but I've decided it's better that way), if you like. But don't be afraid to add a third tier, and portions don't have to be equal. For instance Shreddies first, then Cheerios, topped with a few Frosted Wheats.
Don't people...y'know, think you're a bit special when you do this?
Like I've shat on my food, yes. But fuck other people, this is the business.
Right. Are we done now?
Yeah. Don't pretend you don't love it.
[Scene]
What the fuck is mixing cereals? Some new kind of indie DJ technique?
No, you tit, it's mixing cereals, like for breakfast and stuff.
Umm...why?
Because cereals are social animals, and work better together than in isolation. Advantages are numerous. The chocolate milk properties of Coco-Pops, for instance, make most cereals more interesting. It also lets you feel less guilty about filling yourself with intensely sugary and salty cereals by tempering them with the 'healthy/ier' cereals, like Fruit 'n' Fibre, or the ones you can convince yourself aren't that unhealthy because no sugar is mentioned in the name, like Cheerios.
You're a strange, strange person.
I know, get over it.
Okay then, hit me with some of your best combinations.
Possibly the best thing about mixing cereals is that it turns that most inedible (yet annoyingly...err...energy-ific? Energetic? Energising?) of cereals, porridge, into something tolerable. I'm not saying it's the most delicious thing in the world by any means, but try sprinkling a load of Honey Nut Cornflakes on your porridge to make it less baby-pukeish (it will look like baby puke though). Most cereals are fine, but there is one massive exception: never ever EVER put Coco-Pops in porridge, it is unquestionably the worst combination ever, and mixes about as well as oil and water. If you're in it and the oil is on fire. With sharks.
Anything else?
So far it's been fairly Marxist - the base-superstructure approach to breakfeast (that was a typo, but I've decided it's better that way), if you like. But don't be afraid to add a third tier, and portions don't have to be equal. For instance Shreddies first, then Cheerios, topped with a few Frosted Wheats.
Don't people...y'know, think you're a bit special when you do this?
Like I've shat on my food, yes. But fuck other people, this is the business.
Right. Are we done now?
Yeah. Don't pretend you don't love it.
[Scene]
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Your Highness: Review
In Your Highness, big fat man-child Danny McBride - part Jack Black, part the-boss-from-the-IT Crowd - stars as big fat man-child Thadeous, the younger inept, incompetent, probably incontinent brother of Fabious (James Franco), the kingdom's heroic prince. The cast is surprisingly starry, with a couple of Hollywood's finest in Natalie Portman (swoon!) and Zooey Deschanel (don't ever get old!) also adding further star-power, not to mention low-cut tops. Fantasy quest films and literary traditions are spoofed, and sometimes even used straight, good-naturedly in director David Gordon Green's successor to stoner hit Pineapple Express.
The whole film revolves around McBride's spiel, and if you don't like him it can probably be guaranteed that you will not like this film. There is nothing nuanced about this type of comedy; it relies almost entirely, somewhat bizarrely, on 'fuck' sounding funny against the typically portentious olde worlde fantasy speak that the characters spew. Is it funny? I don't think any critic is in a position to say what is and isn't funny, such are the disparities in senses of humour, so all I can give is personal experience: it works to some extent, but it does begin to wear thin. There is one particularly fantastic use of fuck though, where upon an event called 'the fuckening' occurs when two moons are aligned and if a virginal maiden (in this case Deschanel) gets ravaged then the world falls into darkness. Or something.
It's kind of strange how great the dearth of actual non-fuck-related gags is. They're almost non existent. Aside from McBride, the bad guy Leezar (an unrecognisable Justin Theroux) and the weedy squire Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker) the other characters play it very straight, most of the time. The writers seemed undecided how many laughs they wanted to give Portman and Franco; perhaps because they are not renowned for comedic roles, but whatever the reason there are definite balance issues.
Other discrepancies include the uneven parodic tone; I'm not even sure if it is in fact a parody. There are several classic fantasy elements given only minor superficial comic twists, for instance the gladiatorial arena, or the labyrinth scene. There are also other elements outside the fantasy oeuvre that are referenced; the very premise of a virginal bride and cosmic alignment is taken from the gothic horror tradition; the aforementioned labyrinth scene from Greek mythology - both seem to be going against what the film is aiming for.
I really wanted to really like Your Highness. I wanted it to be a perfectly judged pile of offensive, funny crap, and while it could be very funny, depending on your own personal taste, this only papers over the fact that it is inconsistent and sometimes a bit muddled. Moments of brilliantly quotable silliness are tempered by getting the basics wrong.
I've decided star ratings are worthless, so henceforth all reviews will just be thumbs up or thumbs down; Your Highness gets a thumbs up.
P.S sorry for not blogging for ages, I've had no interesting thoughts in a while. Easy stuff like reviews might have to fill in for more interesting things.
The whole film revolves around McBride's spiel, and if you don't like him it can probably be guaranteed that you will not like this film. There is nothing nuanced about this type of comedy; it relies almost entirely, somewhat bizarrely, on 'fuck' sounding funny against the typically portentious olde worlde fantasy speak that the characters spew. Is it funny? I don't think any critic is in a position to say what is and isn't funny, such are the disparities in senses of humour, so all I can give is personal experience: it works to some extent, but it does begin to wear thin. There is one particularly fantastic use of fuck though, where upon an event called 'the fuckening' occurs when two moons are aligned and if a virginal maiden (in this case Deschanel) gets ravaged then the world falls into darkness. Or something.
It's kind of strange how great the dearth of actual non-fuck-related gags is. They're almost non existent. Aside from McBride, the bad guy Leezar (an unrecognisable Justin Theroux) and the weedy squire Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker) the other characters play it very straight, most of the time. The writers seemed undecided how many laughs they wanted to give Portman and Franco; perhaps because they are not renowned for comedic roles, but whatever the reason there are definite balance issues.
Other discrepancies include the uneven parodic tone; I'm not even sure if it is in fact a parody. There are several classic fantasy elements given only minor superficial comic twists, for instance the gladiatorial arena, or the labyrinth scene. There are also other elements outside the fantasy oeuvre that are referenced; the very premise of a virginal bride and cosmic alignment is taken from the gothic horror tradition; the aforementioned labyrinth scene from Greek mythology - both seem to be going against what the film is aiming for.
I really wanted to really like Your Highness. I wanted it to be a perfectly judged pile of offensive, funny crap, and while it could be very funny, depending on your own personal taste, this only papers over the fact that it is inconsistent and sometimes a bit muddled. Moments of brilliantly quotable silliness are tempered by getting the basics wrong.
I've decided star ratings are worthless, so henceforth all reviews will just be thumbs up or thumbs down; Your Highness gets a thumbs up.
P.S sorry for not blogging for ages, I've had no interesting thoughts in a while. Easy stuff like reviews might have to fill in for more interesting things.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
The Musical Horseshoe
There is a well-known concept in politics of the 'political horseshoe'. It says that as you get towards the extreme left and right (communism and fascism respectively) of the political spectrum the two ends begin to converge. The two opposing ideologies share more common traits than either would like to admit; they both contain an authoritarian tendency, both are resistant to clean elections, free media and to some extent share anti-Semetic attitudes.
I think this theory can be applied to music too. On the far left is metal, the really heavy, grinding, rhythm-based type, and on the right is dubstep. In terms of the people who listen to them, there really isn't much cross-over; I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who really likes both, and most people who like one tend to dislike the other. At risk of generalising horrifically and unscientifically, I'll leave that there,
However, musically there are many parallels. Dubstep is a rhythm-based genre; the syncopated drums and the classic/fucking irritating dubstep 'wobble' are the overriding features. It may be a Muse remix, but this (I think) is a pretty good example (drop at 1.43). Melody and chord progressions are shunned in favour of bowel-moving bass. It if often extremely heavy, to the point of actively annoying someone with a more mainstream taste caught in the crossfire.
Metal does this too. Few things elicit such an immediate "Christ, turn that shit off" response as hardcore screaming over a drop-C-chug, except perhaps firealarms, wailing babies and Justin Beiber. (On second thoughts, 'wailing babies' has Beiber accounted for). The aforementioned drop-C/D-chug is a fairly good comparison with the also aforementioned dubstep bass-wobble. They underpin the song (song feels inadequate in both cases) right at the low-end, keeping things tight and heavy, and are mainstays in their respective genres. The heavier metal gets, the more it eschews chord progressions and melody, until it is down to its essential elements - aggressive polyrhythms and sparse instrumentation - the same as dubstep. Neither is an easy listen, and both are best listened to live, going a bit mental in a low-ceilinged room.
There are flaws with this theory. Unlike the political spectrum, there isn't really a musical spectrum. At its core I don't think it would be too controversial to say it goes metal > rock > pop > r'n'b > hip hop > dubstep, but that doesn't leave space for jazz and classical, which would probably be closest to metal, which frequently takes inspiration from them. Nevertheless, I think the core argument - that dubstep and extreme metal are innately similar - holds true.
I think this theory can be applied to music too. On the far left is metal, the really heavy, grinding, rhythm-based type, and on the right is dubstep. In terms of the people who listen to them, there really isn't much cross-over; I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who really likes both, and most people who like one tend to dislike the other. At risk of generalising horrifically and unscientifically, I'll leave that there,
However, musically there are many parallels. Dubstep is a rhythm-based genre; the syncopated drums and the classic/fucking irritating dubstep 'wobble' are the overriding features. It may be a Muse remix, but this (I think) is a pretty good example (drop at 1.43). Melody and chord progressions are shunned in favour of bowel-moving bass. It if often extremely heavy, to the point of actively annoying someone with a more mainstream taste caught in the crossfire.
Metal does this too. Few things elicit such an immediate "Christ, turn that shit off" response as hardcore screaming over a drop-C-chug, except perhaps firealarms, wailing babies and Justin Beiber. (On second thoughts, 'wailing babies' has Beiber accounted for). The aforementioned drop-C/D-chug is a fairly good comparison with the also aforementioned dubstep bass-wobble. They underpin the song (song feels inadequate in both cases) right at the low-end, keeping things tight and heavy, and are mainstays in their respective genres. The heavier metal gets, the more it eschews chord progressions and melody, until it is down to its essential elements - aggressive polyrhythms and sparse instrumentation - the same as dubstep. Neither is an easy listen, and both are best listened to live, going a bit mental in a low-ceilinged room.
There are flaws with this theory. Unlike the political spectrum, there isn't really a musical spectrum. At its core I don't think it would be too controversial to say it goes metal > rock > pop > r'n'b > hip hop > dubstep, but that doesn't leave space for jazz and classical, which would probably be closest to metal, which frequently takes inspiration from them. Nevertheless, I think the core argument - that dubstep and extreme metal are innately similar - holds true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)