Lazy Luddite Log

18.11.16

Eureka

I rarely buy books, preferring to borrow them, but a while ago friends gave me a big boffo book voucher and one of the books I purchased was the history text The Forgotten Rebels Of Eureka by Clare Wright. More recently I got to see the author do a presentation on her book and had my copy autographed. My interest in the era possibly stems from my mother (whose Anglo-Celtic ancestry in Australia is traced to the 1850s gold rush) telling me of this important chapter in history. What both book and presentation helped drive home for me is how the following truism is very much mistaken - history is written by the victors.

It would be more accurate to say that secondary sources are written by the victors while primary sources are written by everyone. But even that is a simplification. What we find as we look at both history and the history of history is that it is presented from many perspectives and which ones dominate shifts over time. Forgotten Rebels Of Eureka is a case in point. Wright decided to examine the Eureka Stockade story from the perspective of women and found a huge amount of information to draw on in the public record. Everything from personal correspondences to ship manifests told a story that had been overlooked rather than deliberately suppressed. But we are playing here with shades of grey.

I could argue that the history of Eureka from any perspective has been overlooked and contrast it with the story of (say) Ned Kelly. There have been far more regular depictions of Kelly in popular culture because our society seems to value vigilantes over rebels. I could also say the legacy of Eureka has been deliberately distorted and refer to the existence of both militant trade unions and extremist nationalist groups adopting the Eureka flag despite the fact that the Eureka Stockade rebels were self-employed entrepreneurs of multi-national background engaging in a modest tax revolt as a last resort. In all these cases it has been the actions of many autonomous perspectives that have resulted in the mixed perceptions we have of Eureka. Nobody has successfully monopolized the role of story-teller. So now onto part of that story.

Life on the 1950s goldfields was difficult for everyone both in the civilian settlements and the government compounds that ruled over them. The population exploded overnight as all those entrepreneurs (who in many ways were more like gamblers) flocked to central Victoria to find gold and a better way of life. The government soon decided that there were too many men and too few women. Any functioning community must have a mix of characteristics but in this case the opinion arose from the patronizing notion that women calmed the more savage natures of men. The sexist roles of the Victorian Era had men striving while women mollify. Functional demarcations like that tend to go hand-in-hand with power imbalances but in this there also lay the potential for change.

Government policy fostered the migration of more women to the goldfields and that included a growth in family life. With it came domestic violence. However a community living in tents is one with scant privacy and this in part may have resulted in greater exposure of the problem. There are records of a surprising number of women taking legal action against abusive men and sometimes even succeeding. But they did more than just stave off violent men or seek to influence gentler men. Women also took an active role in shaping and driving the community.

Some traded with the local Wathaurung - possum-skin cloaks became a valued commodity that was both warm and striking. Some worked alongside partners on digging claims. And some decided to sell the skills and services necessary to a growing population. In the next few paragraphs I will focus on a few of the more note-worthy and enterprising women of the goldfields.

* Jane Cuming is one of the few women acknowledged in older secondary sources. Her background in England included involvement in the Chartist movement for political reform. The goldfields harboured many such ideological aspirants originating in both Europe and America. Cuming was part of the Eureka Stockade revolt and five decades later sat front-and-centre in its reunion photograph.

* Martha Clendinning decided to operate a general store from part of the family tent. Many women did likewise and were soon bringing more money in than their mining husbands, a development that caused tension and jealousy. Having your own income is a key part of garnering a degree of autonomy but it can also undermine masculine egos conditioned to think their worth comes from bringing home the bacon.

* Clara Seekamp helped her husband edit and publish a newspaper - the Ballarat Times - and while he was indisposed she became sole controller of its content. Both of them were keen on seeing better conditions and improved justice on the goldfields. It should be hardly surprising that critics of the paper were all-the-more scathing of it for the fact that a women had a hand in its content. But it was read nonetheless and had an impact on the civic life of the goldfields.

* Ellen Young submitted content to papers such as the Ballarat Times. One of the things Victorian society did allow of women was creative writing and Young submitted poetry. Her compositions focused on political matters and she eloquently argued in verse for British Law (with its pretensions to decency and justice) to be consistently and truthfully applied in the goldfields. She expressed the popular opinion that the polity should be what it was intended to be rather than that it be replaced by something more radical. The poetry of Young was popular with both women and men.

* Sarah Hanmer was owner and operator of the Adelphi Theatre. The goldfields population craved recreation and makeshift public venues like the Adelphi provided just that. Hanmer was a performer herself but as an older woman took more of a background organizing role. Some of the shows performed were pure entertainment. Others however took the form of satire (always a safer way of expressing dissent) targeting the political issues of goldfields life. Hanmer became affluent and donated some of her profits to local causes. As politics on the goldfields became more tense she hosted benefits supportive of those seeking reform. The Adelphi became a site in which like-minded locals could meet and agitate during interval. The importance of such settings cannot be overlooked in the cause of change.


The Eureka Stockade revolt itself was a failure. But the spirit of cultural and political change it reflected in the population went onto drive democratic reforms in the colony of Victoria and beyond. Most of the direct benefits of that change went to men despite the involvement of women in those efforts. It was only later that women worked together specifically for their own emancipation from oppression.

The powerful seek to present themselves as more powerful than they truly are. This is an effective way of preserving power positions and both oppressor and oppressed sometimes collaborate in fabricating the fiction of hegemony. We tend to imagine the past as a time in which the elites were so much more powerful than they are now. And hand-in-hand with that comes the impression that those lacking power had none at all. But an examination of the personal lives of those associated with the Eureka Stockade story complicates this impression. In this handful of anecdotes we see how even a small share of power can be parlayed into more and that over time this can result in lasting change.

There is a Museum Of Australian Democracy At Eureka and I think I shall have to visit it one of these days. Hopefully once there I will find some of the names discussed here also displayed there.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

31.10.16

Magnum Movember

I am experimentally getting involved in Movember by reviewing episodes of the TV series Magnum PI (1980-1988) as an alternative to growing a moustache. This will be a bit unusual for me as it is civic work for the direct benefit of a demographic to which I belong and it somehow feels selfish. But we shall see how we go. I will be starting my profile page off with a whole series overview and am sharing it here too.

I originally saw Magnum while on the cusp of adolescence.  I enjoyed it then even if it was a bit mature for me.  Now on a re-watching I find it is rather immature, or at any rate the central character is.  Thomas Magnum is more than just the usual action hero.  There is a marked lack of stoicism in him. In fact, he is a bit of a winger.  The deeper truth however is that Magnum has had to be very stoic over the important things in life and so is a petulant bastard over its more trivial aspects.  Magnum admits in one episode that he acts like a big kid because his time as a Vietnam War combatant and operative (in Naval Intelligence) robbed him of a carefree youth.  Now he pursues rest and recreation between gigs as a private investigator.

There is a sober heart to the Magnum story but much of the appeal of the show is its surface fun and there is lots of it.  The setting of Hawaii is an enticing one, partly because of the tropical island locales, and partly because the culture of the fiftieth US state is a distinct one, drawing on everything from its Polynesian roots to its significant Japanese migrant population.  Another aspect of the setting we can now add is the nostalgia value of its era.  The vibe of the show is quintessentially 80s and demonstrates many of the stylistic shifts TV experienced that distinguished it from the 70s.  Take for instance its iconic theme music (introduced twelve episodes in) which puts electric guitar solo into the foreground and brass blasts into the background.

The characters and interactions are engaging and fun.  Tensions between the core characters can be frustrating to watch, but are also a source of self-deprecating humour.  As the series progresses we also see close and growing bonds of friendship and camaraderie born of shared challenges and tragedy.  Magnum, Rick, TC and Higgins are all survivors of one war or another and Magnum PI was pioneering in exploring the suffering of Vietnam vets.  But while our heroes are all very flawed characters, they are not anti-heroes, and I think this distinguishes these 80s characters from both the paragons of older shows and the gloomy and gritty characters of more recent programs.  That in part is what keeps drawing me back.

I do have some qualms with the lack of diversity in casting.  The four regular characters are all male.  This is compensated for somewhat by a regular supply of interesting female guest characters.  However they do have a tendency to fall into the same role over and over.  An independent and self-possessed woman finds herself in circumstances beyond even her ability and so turns to the titular character for help.  Magnum agrees to take the job and over its course starts to fall for his client till (say two thirds into the episode) he discovers there is more to her than she is letting on and that she is partly to blame for the growing dangers they both find themselves in.  This gets a bit boring and is definitely a dated approach to heroines.

Magnum is a dated program but at the time it was exploring new and different ways of addressing issues within a dramatic context.  Topics that had once been taboo were explored in the show.  The way they were handled seems clumsy by contemporary standards but popular culture had to make a start and this show was one that had the courage to do that. And along the way we get to examine lots of shady underworld schemes and some very personal murder mysteries. Rarely are the plots too confusing, although sometimes they take surprising turns, and as the seres progressed a hint of the paranormal started creeping in, with Magnum's 'little voice' seeming like more than just intuition. Magnum comes close to death at the end of the seventh season and fans speculate that the entire eighth and final season is set in purgatory.

But for me there is something cheering in watching episodes of Magnum which I find difficult to define. It does this even better than many science fiction or fantasy shows and I cannot say exactly why. I will enjoy reviewing select episodes as my way of generating some funds for Movember. So drive a borrowed red Ferrari to the island estate you live at rent-free and kick back in the bungalow with Thomas Magnum - owner of arguably the best mo of the 80s.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

28.9.16

A Bucket Of Dim-Sims

Like many others, I have been perturbed by the return to our Federal Parliament of the One Nation political party and its celebrity leader Pauline Hanson. I'm lucky to belong to none of the demographics Hanson targets with derision. And yet as someone who campaigned in opposition to One Nation 'back in the day' I feel a sense of loss. In this post I will discuss that feeling and hark back to a small campaign I facilitated in the late 1990s.

My feeling of loss comes in part from a tendency to cast our lives in fictional terms. In story-telling the heroes get to vanquish the monster and, with any luck, it never comes back. Midnight Oil even referred to Hanson as a vampire in the song White Skin Black Heart. In reality, however, our political opponents are just other humans who think and act differently from us. We share a society, and sometimes even workplaces or extended family groupings, with them. And sometimes if we look more closely we find that we share opinions too. Many who oppose the xenophobia of One Nation nonetheless object to Globalization. Many who oppose One Nation likewise object to the dominance of seemingly distant career politicians. In both these instances they occupy common ground with One Nation. However, as satirist Pauline Pantsdown has noted, Hanson is every bit the career politician, and now she has returned.

Another factor in my sense of dismay comes from the polity I live in. Rarely do ideologically peripheral groups get elected to Australian legislatures to the extent they do overseas. If I were the citizen of another representative democracy (including many peaceful ones I would be happy to live in) then I would be more accustomed to my parliaments having a token smattering of everything from communists to fascists. I could wave my hand dismissively at them as mere political decoration. But with the return of One Nation to the Senate it seems Australia has gone mad. The media love this controversy and amplify everything Hanson says. And once that happens persons of conscience have to respond and take a stand. The alternative is allowing prejudice to be given a veneer of respectability which in turn makes overt and damaging bigotry more commonplace.

Back in the late 90s one of the ways I responded was to propose an on-campus information campaign to the then Monash Democrats. We felt that an antidote to the absurd and divisive claims of One Nation was the sharing of statistics. Rarely do the newspapers that report political statements also then list facts to confirm or contradict those statements. Our One Nation Is Full Of Shit sheets were stuck to the walls of toilet cubicles on campus and we encouraged hand-written comments from those reading them. We took our information from an Australian Democrats pamphlet which in turn drew heavily from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I have lost the original sheets we produced but I did recently come across transcriptions I made of the various comments received. I will share some here and then make a few observations.

"Will the Member for Oxley please give me a bucket of dim-sims and a shit-load of soy."

This is the most flippant and seemingly neutral comment we got but it has also stuck in my memory the most. It refers to Pauline Hanson having been a fish-and-chip shop operator before she got elected to the then House of Representatives division of Oxley. I however think of how the dim-sim can represent Australian multiculturalism. These ubiquitous snacks were inspired by finger foods introduced by Chinese-Australians, mass produced by the Greek-Australian owned Marathon Foods, and enjoyed by Australians of all backgrounds. This small story illustrates how culture constantly cross-pollinates and regenerates and how pristine and enduring monocultures are a fantasy.

"[ABS and Census figures are] government controlled bullshit!"

A growing number of political commentators say that using facts in emotive political debates is futile because ones opponents are completely set in what they feel. This quote shows an extreme instance of this. Some deny that there is any common ground of fact over which we can argue. All you can do is ask them why they think the truth they rely on is any more trustworthy. Or better yet move on and find more productive settings for debate. Look at the next comment.

"Thank goodness we now have some hard facts! One thing Australia does not need is the 'enemy within' syndrome. Hanson is not just racist she is dangerous! I want a copy of this!"

In political debates there are many who are stuck in between - lurkers and waverers and those who agree with you but lack confidence - and they have power too. Even if you never convince a rival you can still sway others or give them the tools they need to engage in debate themselves. Seeing something like this quote made me feel that our work was done.

"Oh! So Australians are dumber. In your next issue could you please write some more about migrants being better than Aussies."

One Nation provoke fear and envy by saying that migrants take our welfare or our jobs or both. Successive Australian governments have favoured skilled migrants who are well-placed to take jobs. But they also contribute to the economy as entrepreneurs and consumers. Past figures have shown that migration has a neutral to positive impact on employment. We had shared statistics to show that migrants contribute to the economy. This quote however shows the sensitivity of someone prone to insult. Possibly they had experienced hardship and were looking for simplistic solutions. Everyone wants those...

"One Nation are irrelevant - it's a right-wing civil war - Lib/Nat versus One Nation - the Left should wait then move in - read more Lenin."

Honestly what can one say to Bolshy stuff like this? They are so lost in doctrine as to lack any sense of what is happening in the here-and-now. And while they watch it is marginalized groups in society that suffer from the emboldened expressions of bigotry that One Nation as a parliamentary party provoke. With hindsight we know that a lot of the One Nation rhetoric was borrowed and polished by the Liberal/National Coalition. One Nation lost ground but are back. I think they will falter another time but it has nothing to do with hoping that others will do the job for us.

* * * * *

My prediction of One Nation faltering comes in part from my suspicion that a handful of ego-driven maverick senators with peculiar perspectives will eventually turn on each other. Extremists are like that. They have difficulty coping with a massive cosmopolitan society and they will also be challenged by the differences that inevitably exist within a small group. That kind of person wants things to be just so and once they discover differences among them the cracks will form. This happened to One Nation back in the late 90s. But have they adapted as a result of past experiences? I'm skeptical. The first speech in the Senate by Hanson was a regurgitation of her first speech from the 90s. She still talks of Australia getting 'swamped' and only changed the group to be scared of. Surely after decades a person would want to express things differently just from a sense of personal development. Nope - I think One Nation will face similar problems because the past they are stuck in includes the past history of One Nation itself.

My other hunch is that those of us who cherish a cosmopolitan society will continue to challenge what One Nation say. For Hanson 'freedom of speech' is an empty catch-phrase. I remember how she insisted on scripted interviews thereby effectively stifling the speech of journalists. We however can remember that free speech only works if it is universal. If they say something then we can say things too. Cite facts. Use personal anecdotes. Express your opinion. And if you are intimidated by a seeming rise in bigotry then seek help from others. Society is moving long-term in an exciting and positive direction but in the short-term that is provoking desperation among those resistant to change. We just have to keep talking, whether online, or in person, or even on toilet walls.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

29.8.16

Cultural Relativism And Universal Rights

I first came across the concept of cultural relativism in the 1990s. Dr Mahathir (then long-serving Prime Minister of Malaysia) argued that criticisms of his human rights record were nothing more than the imposition of values foreign to his own nation. This kind of thinking has a much longer history and reminds me of the following dismissal of universal rights from the Count de Maistre writing in 1797:

“Now there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians… But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life.”

The count needed to pay more attention to the common characteristics and aspirations of humans but he was an arch-conservative and one thing with conservatives is that they are particularist. Each nation will have its own home-grown conservatives whose purpose is to preserve the customs peculiar to it and (while they are at it) exaggerate its distinctiveness. This contrasts with international movements for liberty and equality that have a history of asserting the universality of civil rights and the importance of democracy worldwide.

And yet all too often I have noticed some opponents of conservatism making cultural relativist statements. They argue that democracy has a European cultural origin and to wish it for all nations is Eurocentric thinking. This assertion needs to be looked at more closely.

It is commonly known that democracy was invented in ancient Greek city-states and it is likewise commonly known that Greece is a part of Europe. But the ancient Greeks conceived of themselves as part of a Mediterranean world while Europe was merely a barbaric backwoods. It was only much later that a European identity formed and Enlightenment era scholars (resisted by the likes of the Count de Maistre) drew inspiration from the ancient Greek polis. Assuming a never-changing and uniform European identity is itself Eurocentric thinking.

Furthermore if we look across human history we find practices in power sharing and popular rule have developed independently in many parts of the world. Other candidates for such developments include the ganas of India and the Iroquois Confederacy in North America. Assuming that democracy is a solely European concept betrays a kind of Eurocentric thinking and dismisses democratic heritages across the planet.

So why do some opponents of conservatism harbour conservative assumptions? I venture two explanations. One is that pre-modern and post-modern thinking meet on the far side of the curvature of modern politics. Regarding every culture as alien to every other is pre-modern but rejecting any kind of rational common ground for defining terms is post-modern. Both abandon the possibility that we can understand one another and participate in shared discussions.

My other explanation is simply to say that some of us define our ideology by what we stand for while others are shaped by what they oppose. Among the ranks of progressives (of which I am one) there will be those who would be better understood as anti-conservatives. Ironically it is anti-conservatives who are more likely to accept conservative assumptions. As they seek to oppose home-grown conservatives they inadvertently play into the hands of conservatives in other lands.

If you accept the cultural relativist argument that every culture has its own unique concept of what it is to be human then it is worth asking who this thinking serves. Look beyond just the supposedly uniform nation to see that it is made of many distinct interests. Does withholding ‘our’ concept of human rights help those who suffer human rights abuses or does it only serve those who perpetrate those abuses? If a person has been imprisoned for criticizing local elites or defying restrictive traditions do they then sit in prison and accept this as part of their culture? Hardly. They ask for better because of a shared human desire for better.

The best way to promote the rights of humans is to empower humans with the ability to make decisions – that is exactly what democracy is. But it can and does exist in many variations because cultural and historical differences do have an impact. Likewise the way rights are defended will differ (say between common law customs and written constitutions). But I think there are standards that are worth sharing globally. The methods by which we will arrive as these shared conditions matter. Peace and diplomacy can be universal values too.

And it is okay to say that anything can be improved by adaptation and reform. After all the government of Dr Mahathir was technically deemed democratic. None of the regimes we live in are perfect and all can be criticized. I am free to criticize my own government but I reserve the right to also criticize others. And if the citizens of those other states lack the freedom that I enjoy then it becomes even more useful for me to say something.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

29.7.16

Smalltime Operators

Live in an area for a while and you get to know and like some of the local specialty stores. In this short post I provide recommendations on three of my favourite small-time operators in the Monash area.

Uyghur Cuisine in Oakleigh

Oakleigh is renowned as the centre of Greek culture and food in the Southern Hemisphere. But walk a short distance away from the Eaton Mall and you find a variety of other cuisines. One of my favourites has to be the generically named Uyghur Cuisine at 97 Atherton Road.

The Uyghur are a Turkic culture from north-eastern China and are associated with the long history of the Silk Road. At the risk of simplifying, what you will find at this small restaurant is food that combines the spiciness of Turkish food with the textures of Chinese food. In particular I'm a fan of the Lamb Lagman. Lagman is a kind of homemade pasta or noodle in the form of tiny pillows with the most wonderfully tender yet firm texture. The small pieces of lamb are succulent and the sauce is a tasty combination of tomato, capsicum and onion.

This is a small family-run restaurant and you can tell. There is a vibe of having stepped into a private home and this comes with both pros and cons. If you want incredibly professional service then you should move on. However if you enjoy something a bit intimate and modest then give this restaurant a go.

Just Collectibles in Mount Waverley

From Jordanville Station you can see a row of shops, offices and club houses, and the most noteworthy is Just Collectibles at 3 Windsor Avenue. The shop moved years ago from a more inner-urban address to this obscure locale. But I guess a specialty shop with a loyal following from across a large area can survive such a move. I also suspect that this store is a labour of love for its proprietor and his dogs.

Go into Just Collectibles and you find yourself in a space crammed with genre-based toys of all kinds from decades past as well as some newer items that deliberately target the nostalgia of affluent adult collectors. I prefer the older second-hand items and in a world of too many knick-knacks think this is a more conscientious way of indulging in a love of collecting. Also I'm a skilled 'window shopper' and regard stepping into such a shop as a chance to look rather than to possess.

And what a lot to see there is! There are huge spaceships for Star Wars figures to pilot. But there are more obscure things there - everything from Alien Versus Predator figurines to James Bond themed die-cast cars. On a whim I even purchased a pre-loved Ghostbusters monster disguised as a toilet! Yes I admit that is a bit odd.

Video Ezy in Notting Hill

Friends are surprised when I say I still borrow movies from a video library. They wonder where such an almost-extinct institution from our youth can still exist. Yes video stores have been shrinking and closing ever since the Internet became an effective way of delivering movie content. But some still operate and the one I'm a member of (at the time of writing) is a Video Ezy at 414 Ferntree Gully Road (close to the Blackburn Road intersection in a small set of shops that includes the passive-aggressive 'mower man').

This small library is crammed with DVDs which suggests to me that the collection has been consolidated from other now-closed franchisees. Who can say how long this one will stay open. It does seem to get lots of customers however. I think two factors may contribute to this. One is that there are customers like me who still enjoy browsing shelves and using discs and are prepared to come from surrounding suburbs. The other is that Notting Hill is a neighbourhood with a lot of affluent and aging residents who own nice DVD players and lack the patience to bother with newer forms of information delivery.

The shelves offer everything from recent blockbusters to old and almost forgotten cult classics. There will be titles you can find here that the Internet lacks. So if you still enjoy this way of getting your movies then consider becoming a member and supporting this and other local owner-operator capitalists.

Cross-posted at here.

Labels:

19.6.16

More Clumps

Once more I'm sharing a method of mine to help decide Senate preferences in Victoria for the 2016 Federal Election - I call it Clumps. In preparing this I have made a study of the Victorian Senate candidates via (i) party websites (ii) other websites and (iii) my own link to the political Zeitgeist. Ideology has been my sole criterion. My intention is that once I have sorted these clumps I can then order the specific groups within (or in some cases across) the clumps. Here is a link back to my Clumps from the last Federal election.

These recommendations will work best for progressive voters like me. To check if you fit that category feel free to take my Political Objectives Test. Clumps may still be useful for those getting ideological liberal, moderate, socialist or radical results but we all think differently so I expect anyone considering my advice will also modify it.

Two things are different this election. One is that we are facing a full Senate election. The other is that we have a new Senate voting method and ballot paper. Now you need to number six-or-more groups above the line or twelve-or-more candidates below the line. I'm presenting clumps in order of approximate palatability. Read from the top and as soon as you have identified six groups to your liking you can stop reading. Or if you are fascinated by the wonderful political diversity of our polity then read to the very end.

I have included the letter designations (A to AL) for each group taken from the Senate white ballot paper. If you want to examine these groups more closely yourself then you can access party websites via the ABC. And if you have any questions do ask.

PROGRESSIVE: Science Party (E), Arts Party (Q), Australian Progressives (AJ), Greens (AK), Eric Vadarlis (UnGrouped)

There are a few groups I consider progressive in this election and I present them in this top clump.

Both the Science Party and the Arts Party have well-developed platforms that bring the perspectives of their two professions to many different issues.

The Australian Progressives seem well-named and remind me of a party I once knew all-to-well.

And the Greens are the most professional and energetic advocates of progressive policy and the closest thing we have to a third major party in Australia.

SMALL 'L' LIBERALS: Pirate Party (J), Secular Party (T), Marriage Equality (X), Drug Law Reform (AC), Voluntary Euthanasia Party (AD), Sex Party (AL)

I put these together in this clump because in one way or another they emphasize personal autonomy and civil liberty. They are culturally permissive. Economics is mixed (if tending to free-market).

The Pirate Party are populated by Internet geeks and present policy in the form of a wiki! They are particularly interested in online freedoms and privacy issues.

I suspect many Secular Party members forget that a secular society is one that accommodates all religions rather than one that lacks them. However they seem to provide a useful counterpoint in an electoral contest that includes many more fundamentalist religious parties.

Marriage Equality is a party for the much-needed promotion of civil rights for LGBTIQ Australians and has named itself for what is currently the most prominent issue relevant to the movement.

Drug Law Reform and Voluntary Euthanasia Party have names that pretty much tell you what matter to them and both push in the direction of personal autonomy.

I once felt that the Sex Party were too much an extension of the sex industry but they have gotten a better reputation since getting a member elected to the Victorian Parliament. Now they hope to do the same thing Federally.

CENTRIST: Group (B), Labor (D), Nick Xenophon Team (V), Meredith Urie (UnGrouped)

It seems that Group B involves members of the latter-day Australian Democrats whose party lacks registration in Victoria. Mine was once a progressive party whose very moderate methodology attracted non-progressive voters. In contrast the current group seem to honestly think they can be centrist in an electorate that includes Labor.

Labor are the party of the mixed economy and political compromise and wanting to be progressive but getting scared of conservative lobby groups. As populists they let opportunism dictate many political decisions for the sake of winning or keeping power. However I also consider them the natural party of government.

The Nick Xenophon Team has the purpose of getting some mates elected to keep Senator Xenophon (SA) company. Since his election Xenophon has grown to be much more than a gambling harm-minimization campaigner and self-identifies as centrist.

NON-GREENS ENVIRONMENTAL: Animal Justice Party (C), Sustainable Australia (I), Renewable Energy Party (M)

You may wonder why these groups exist if we have the Greens. In some cases it is that they are so dedicated to particular environmental causes that they trust nobody but themselves. In other cases it is that they may have positions at variance with the Greens on non-environmental issues.

Animal Justice Party radically focuses on animal liberation and veganism.

Sustainable Australia seem to think that population is the issue that defines environmental problems (rather than the consumption patterns of persons and industry).

The Renewable Energy Party is the latest micro-party project of life-long political hack Peter Breen.

ISSUE OR PERSONALITY FOCUSED: Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party (A), Jacqui Lambie Network (G), Health Australia Party (L), Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (W), Mature Australia (AE), John Karagiannidis (UnGrouped), Allan Mull (UnGrouped)

This is an interesting mixed clump of parties that either focus on a particular issue or promote the election of a particular public figure (or in some cases both). Often they have a moderate-seeming leader who nonetheless attracts a rather conservative support-base. Take a critical look before voting for them.

Normally one expects ‘law and order’ candidates to be conservative but Derryn Hinch is a media figure who resists such classification. Possibly one could argue that this is a party for moderates because ‘the pendulum has swung too far’ on issues of criminal justice and sentencing. You be the judge (so to speak).

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Tas) is a maverick former associate of Clive Palmer with a focus on defence and veterans issues. Whether I agree with her depends very much on the topic but I continue to be wary despite her new-found independence.

Health Australia Party have a focus on – well - health issues and on the surface look fine. But if you take a closer look at both wording and candidate bios you discover a connection with alternative medicine and New Age doctrines.

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party accidentally elected Senator Ricky Muir (Vic) last time and many have been surprised by his humanity and refreshed by his candour. Take a look however at his voting record and the policy of his party and you will find a more mixed story.

Mature Australia is a party representing older Australians and focusing on issues of aging. Many of them are worthwhile but every so often there is a hint of traditional or ‘old-fashioned’ thinking that marks this as a potentially conservative group.

APATHETIC: VoteFlux (N)

This party has a gimmick rather than an ideology. They have an app rather than any kind of policy platform. If they have opinions nobody will ever know because they will do whatever they are told by whatever group of voters can be bothered getting online and directing them. I think this is stupid.

MARXISTS: Socialist Equality Party (K), Socialist Alliance (Z)

Both these groups are Marxist. The former is a distinct party while the latter is a network of separate organizations. On an issue-by-issue basis progressive voters may well agree with them on many things but personally I have a problem with anyone whose ideology includes talk of violent revolution.

COALITION AND SUBSTITUTES: Palmer United Party (F), Australian Country Party (AA), Liberals / Nationals (AF), Karthik Arasu (UnGrouped)

This clump is for our neo-conservative Liberal & National Coalition but also for parties that would otherwise be them but have some sort of problem with those major parties. It may be personal differences with key figures. It may be party culture or structures. It may be a sense that the Coalition are neglecting some deserving interest they are supposed to support.

Clive Palmer (Qld) made a big splash last time but his small group of parliamentarians soon started having internal problems and I would be surprised if we see them do well this time. The political vanity projects of entrepreneurs tend to come and go.

The Australian Country Party resulted from a merger of Country Alliance with the Victorian chapter of Katter Australia Party. They tend to be former Nationals who feel that the Coalition neglects rural interests and will thus be less into neo-liberal economics and more into morally conservative values.

UNCLUMPED: Dana Spasojevic, Geoff Lutz, Chris Ryan, Mark Francis Dickenson, Glenn Floyd, Christopher Beslis

The problem with independents is that it is difficult to find information on many of them and they can represent any kind of politics (including ones you never imagined existed). As such it is important to err on the side of caution and put them low unless you have information on specific candidates. I have added some independents to other clumps with the designation '(UnGrouped)' if information warranted it. The rest I have listed here (see above). If you have information on any of these that contradicts how I have clumped them then do alert me.

COMMUNITARIAN: Democratic Labour Party (R), Manufacturing And Farming Party (AB), Stephen Juhasz (UnGrouped), Immanuel Shmuel (UnGrouped)

Imagine a community that both takes care of you via welfare and industry protection and polices your personal behaviour ‘for your own good’. This is how I define a clump that laments both the trends of free markets and a permissive society.

The Roman Catholic DLP epitomize this and it is an unusual political tradition with a long history. I have made this separate from the mostly Protestant religious clump and the DLP are far more into interventionist economics.

The Manufacturing And Farming Party has been formed to get Senator John Madigan (Vic) re-elected. Madigan was originally elected as a DLP candidate but then left the party due to nothing more than office politics. As such Madigan still represents the same ‘traditional working family’ he always has.

LIBERTARIAN: Liberal Democrats (AH)

The Liberal Democrats of Senator David Leyonhjelm (NSW) have an ideology wishing to minimize government involvement in all aspects of life except legal defence of person and property. So in economics it is sink or swim for both persons and corporations (we just happen to know that corporations are better swimmers than workers or consumers). And in personal life it is literally your decision and therefore your problem whatever the consequences. The tone is different from what a lot of us feel. Rather than ‘celebrate difference’ it is more ‘do whatever see if I care’.

REACTIONARY RECREATION: Australian Liberty Alliance (U), Shooters Fishers Farmers (AG), Dennis Hall (UnGrouped), Trevor William Nye (UnGrouped)

I call them this because they may well never have gotten political if particular laws did not interfere in how they like to live. Government regulations protecting Australians and the natural environment piss them off. Are necessarily anti-environmentalist and generally conservative.

Australian Liberty Alliance use a lot of libertarian talk but they are more like angry nationalists once you look at the sentiments underpinning what they say.

Shooters Fishers Farmers advocate for rural interests and values and in particular the freedom to hunt and fish all over Australia.

RELIGIOUS ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES: Australian Christians (H), Family First (O), Christian Democratic Party (P), Rise Up Australia (AI), Peter John Hawks (UpGrouped)

For this lot everything is dictated by what they want to think God says. A wonderful excuse for prejudice towards anyone who is different from them in terms of sexuality or family values or religion. They tend to be accepting of different backgrounds and can look multicultural. But they want a society in which we have a homogeneous culture defined by fundamentalist Christianity. Tend to be pro-business and anti-environmentalist.

SECULAR BUT SCARY: Citizens Electoral Council (S), One Nation (Y)

There is plenty of prejudice here. Take a look for yourself if you dare. Both parties combine restrictive cultural values with interventionist economics. Both are anti-environmentalist. In other ways however they are very different.

The CEC is an insular cult-like group with international connections to the LaRouche Movement. They think some of the strangest things. They talk of the value of Abrahamic religions but only as a small part of their wider vision of a virtuous civilization. They deride rock-and-roll and for that alone I oppose them.

One Nation is the nationalist party of Pauline Hanson and while non-religious is still as divisive as anything from the religious fanatic clump. We keep on rejecting them but they just keep on coming back.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

24.5.16

Blinkered

We have entered yet another Australian election campaign and as a result I have been spending more time than usual on news websites and the comments pages thereof. I'm someone who wants a change of government (or a significant change-of-direction in the current government) and naturally that results in arguments. One consequence of this is becoming over-exposed to perspectives and behaviours that vex me. I decided it would be informative to vent my frustrations here by cataloging many of these. Defining this conduct will also help me make sure I never behave in this way because I'm aware how annoying it is. This is something of a 'meta' discussion because I focus on how one does political debate rather than what stances one takes. I also overlook the problems of sloppy communication or bare-faced insults. There is still plenty to frustrate and so here is the kind of stuff I have been facing from those with rival political positions:

* They over-generalize from personal experience. They will for instance make blanket statements regarding relationships based on only ones they have had. Some will even accord their personal encounters the status of experiments (which naturally confirm assumptions they have made regarding human nature).

* They tend to elevate their own personal tastes to the status of moral truths or natural facts. Such silliness as thinking European orchestral music is intrinsically better than other kinds of music is an instance of this (which may seem a trivial case but I think it demonstrates a kind of snobbery and chauvinism).

* They only countenance one explanation for a phenomenon rather than the possibility that things have more than one cause. However they also use different basic assumptions from issue-to-issue. Sometimes they will be biological determinists (saying our behaviour is limited by gender for instance). At other times they will be meritocratic (saying we can do anything as long we make an effort). If these issues enter into the same conversation it can be difficult to understand what they are saying or why.

* They use simplistic models in which everyone gets put into boxes. The fewer boxes they use the better they like it. A handful of anthropological 'races'. A few hazily-defined classes. Only two brands of politics. They also tend to define the boxes in such a way that conflict becomes necessary. Hence we get things like 'the clash of civilizations' even if huge differences exist both within and across those supposed groupings. How can you possibly understand the motives and actions of others with such simplistic models? I suspect many of them have a misanthropic lack of personal development.

* They act as if what you are is more important than what you say. They will take an interest in things like your surname or mugshot to help them define your demographics. This can help them anticipate and characterize your motives rather than focus on the debate itself. According to them I'm a chardonay-sipping hipster with 'white guilt'. What is a mikshake-sucking pink-complexioned suburban nerd with a well-managed case of German Guilt to do?

* They prefer conversations to be scripted rather than improvised. This is partly why they want you to fit an anticipated role. You will then say what they expect and they can respond with a prepared selection of statements, phrases and terms. If you defy the expected script then you undermine what they had planned. Especially If you partly agree with what they say (you for instance offer different solutions to an accepted problem) you undermine them. A more reasonably-minded person may try and explore the common ground you have just opened. But the hostile arguer will become suspicious of your understanding or concern. They may even dive back into their kit of jargon and find some label to help dismiss you as an agent provocateur sent to confuse them.

* They see intent behind problems rather than the possibility that things happen by accident. How many times do we discover that an issue arose from lack-of-competence rather than corruption? How many times was a seemingly offensive act something entirely different? This mundane reality undermines the black-and-white narrative of too many online antagonists.

* They distort the power levels of both themselves and others. Sometimes they are powerful and will declare how the future belongs to them. At other times they will lament how the powers-that-be conspire to limit them at every turn. To some extent I see these as strategic poses. We know that in politics 'everyone loves a winner' yet contrariwise everyone 'roots for the underdog'. Presenting yourself as one or the other may help you get the support you desire. However I sometimes get the feeling that they believe their own propaganda.

I was focusing on argumentative conduct rather than issues but the following mindsets underpinning many issues are worth describing too.

* They think that cultures are set-in-stone. A modicum of historic information tells us that cultures change. They bifurcate and fuse and cross-pollinate. Practices originating in one culture transmit to others and nobody has a copyright on them. Links between blood and land are often looser than we think. But for many these things seem timeless and fixed. This makes it difficult for them to cope with a changing world. That may for instance be why even the non-religious can cling to notions like 'marriage between a man and a woman'.

* They think that economics is a zero-sum game. For someone to be well-off they think it necessary for another person to be poorly-off. For someone to benefit they assume others must suffer. They think welfare must necessarily undermine affluence and that the only way prosperity can grow is if the environment is pillaged or more work is done. They overlook the growth potential of services and the monetizing of existing past-times. As a result they obsess over differences in wealth rather than ways of addressing universal human needs. 'Keeping up with the Joneses' and securing what one has becomes a priority. Generosity is neglected as they object to things like improved foreign aid.

There is a sunny side to all this behaviour - it is self-limiting. The stuff I describe betrays a blinkered and rigid mindset. Its expression is more likely to bolster the opinions of those who feel the same way than it is to change the minds of those who are wavering or yet to form opinions. I have a hunch my more constructive and reasoning manner gives a better impression to 'lurkers'. And there is another way in which I think this problem is limited - I find interactions with political rivals in person to be much less characterized by these behaviours. The Internet itself seems to magnify particular ways of thinking while face-to-face interactions dampen that. And in the end those who operate beyond the confines of the Internet are more likely to exercise practical power. Discussion at a polling place is usually far more satisfying than the cold exchanges occurring online - I look forward therefore to the end of this campaign.

Cross-posted here.

Labels: ,

19.4.16

Fantasy Sketches

Last time I was lazy but this time I'm busy. I have three writing projects on the go concurrently and none of them will give me a blog post right now. The solution? Yet more stuff written for a past MonUCS camp revue. Last month it was cinematic science fiction but this month I'm giving you my sketches describing another genre close to my heart...

Fantasy Revue Act

Narrator: At our last revue we presented a set of scenes showing how science fiction movies had changed over the decades. Tonight we return to do the same thing for the fantasy genre, but it’s a more difficult task. There have been fewer fantasy films overall, and the trends have changed more slowly. Here then, are fantasy films as experienced in childhood by three post-war generations…

* * * * *

Narrator: The Baby Boomers grew up on fantasy films that took fables and legends and then scrambled them together in the melting pot of Hollywood script-writing…

Jack: I am Jack The Giant Killer!

Sinbad: I am Sinbad The Sailor!

Both: And I’m on a quest to save Helen Of Troy from the Cyclops!

Jack: Hey listen buddy, I’m the slayer of giant-kin around here!

Sinbad: What do you mean, around here? Cornwall’s a long way away, buster!

Jack: Well, I like walking.

Sinbad: And?

Jack: And swimming…

Sinbad: Swimming? I hate swimming! That’s why I own this magnificent ship, The Nomad.

Jack: It’s a nice ship. Say, could I come with you on your voyage?

Sinbad: Sure thing, I can navigate us to our destination, and you can kill the giant…

Jack: Gee, swell!

Sinbad: [directly to audience] And while he fights the Cyclops I’ll get away with the gorgeous gal! *waggles eyebrows*

* * * * *

Narrator: Fantasy had diversified by the time Gen-Xers like me were devouring movies of magic and daring-do. Some were aimed at kids but had surprisingly mature content…

Sadie: I must take the Crystal Pacifier to the Golden Child at the centre of the Maddening Maze, while at the same time learn some important life lessons, but I’m thoroughly lost at this t-intersection!

Puppet 1: Only we can tell you which path you should take, but there are rules we must follow!

Sadie: What rules?

Puppet 1: You can ask us any question you wish but know this! One of us always tells the truth and the other one always lies!

Puppet 2: Now that is a lot of bull-dust right there!

Puppet 1: How can you say something like that?

Puppet 2: Coz she can do what she likes, within the limitations of this imaginary setting she finds herself in. She can play logic games with us if she wants, but she could also choose a more violent course and knock the answer out of us!

Puppet 1: Preposterous! How could she intimidate us?

Puppet 2: Well we are only socks.

Puppet 1: How dare you! I’m a Gremlick!

Puppet 2: Or, honey-child, if you wanted you could try to seduce the information from us. I for one would happily be worn by feet such as those…

Sadie: [to the audience] See what I mean about life lessons…

* * * * *

Narrator: On the other hand there were fantasy films aimed at adults that we clamoured to see because – well – they were pretty juvenile…

Horora: I, Honora The Heathen, travel the wilds seeking fortune and fun times. Look upon the toned muskles of my scantily-clad body! At the tavern wenches and swains alike dig me!

Wenches And Swains: [crowd around and clasp Honora’s limbs while saying…] Oh Honora The Heathen have your hunky way with us a while!

Honora: But you know there’s more to my adventures than just nubile bit-part actors and baby oil, for there is also blood and guts! [wenches and swains cower away]

The Rendathar: I the Rendathar come from the Abyss to destroy your body and absorb your soul! Even you Horora The Heathen cannot resist my power!

Honora: Fiend! None can resist a heroine born in freedom and come-of-age in the blood of combat! Raaagh! [charges with club raised]

The Rendathar: Ouch! That hurts!

* * * * *

Narrator: Finally we come to the fantasy served to Gen-Y youngsters. The computer generated images are superb, the location shots are impressive, the actors have rather nice British accents and experience in performing the works of the immortal Bard. Meet the adventurers Tensi and Koray...

Tesni: Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

Koray: I have let the dogs loose… but… one of them is still cowering here at our feet…

Tesni: Out, out, damned Spot!

Koray: There he goes, with the others, to attack that massive Dracolisk!

Tensi: Dracolisk?

Koray: Yes, tis the love-child of a dragon and a basilisk. Quickly, put on these, they will protect us from its petrifying gaze.

Tensi: It looks so very realistic. Witness the way the torch-light reflects off its ruddy scales… Behold how convincingly its shadow falls onto those canine statues…

Koray: Um… looks like it turned the dogs of war to stone…

Tensi: Yes, but we’re safe, right?

Koray: You speak to soon, for see, it closes its eyes! Quickly! We must don our Cloaks of Fire Repulsion!

Tensi: Okay, but why does it close its eyes?

Koray: It closes its eyes so that it will not accidentally petrify its own belching flames. But we are safe now, both from petrifying gaze and flaming breath.

Tensi: Yes. The only thing that could harm us now is if it turned its own flames into a storm of fine stony fragments, but I assume the eye-closing is a reflex action.

Koray: Ah… it’s actually a learned behaviour, and I think it heard you!

Tensi: Run!

Koray: Can we go back to fighting clay-mation giants?

Once more the Alex and Ben played key spoken roles with verve and aplomb. Next month I promise something more freshly written (but possibly also more sober).

Dungeon Crawl

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

23.3.16

SF Sketches

I have taken weeks to finalize the content of an entry I supposedly published last month. To compensate for that I'm now sharing something I produced a while ago but only shared with a select few. The revues that happen at MonUCS camps provide an chance to present all sorts of things to an open-minded audience. In this case I got a few fellow choristers to act roles in my summary of the changes in cinematic science fiction since the 50s. I present it now for the consumption of whomever...

SF Revue Act

Narrator: I'm a fan of science fiction in the form of novels, television shows and films. In this short set of scenes we will present to you some changes that SF movies have undergone since the mid Twentieth Century.

* * * * *

Narrator: In the 1950s SF movies were very earnest and the acting was rather wooden...

1950s (almost monotone American accents)

General: Mr President, the aliens are invading and our weapons do nothing to their saucers.

President: General, is there anything we can do to save the Earth?

Narrator: Or, in more enlightened movies...

Saucer Commander: Star Marshal, the humans have perfected the Atom Bomb. They seem destined to destroy one another.

Star Marshal: Saucer Commander, is there anything we can do to save the Earth?

* * * * *

Narrator: In the 60s things became more wild, zany and fun...

1960s (Professor has German mad scientist accent while Jamie talks like a hippy)

Professor: Jamie The Surfing Hippy!

Jamie: Yes, Professor?

Professor: The alien invasion has begun!

Jamie: What will they do to us, Professor?

Professor: They plan to fire their Attractor Ray on our cities!

Jamie: Zowee! What will that do?

Professor: It will make us all want to have the sex with each other!

Jamie: That’s heavy! Is there any way to stop them?

Professor: Why would we wanna stop them! *waggles eyebrows*

* * * * *

Narrator: In the 70s things were both serious and emotional...

1970s (increasingly brooding delivery, one accent American, the other British)

Young Woman: I'm sick of wearing identical while jumpsuits.

Young Man: I'm sick of looped elevator music.

Young Woman: I tire of this oppressive and sterile culture we live in.

Young Man: I wish I could see the stars but they are obscured behind this massive dome that protects us from the radiation of the last war.

Young Woman: If only aliens had invaded in the Twentieth Century, then none of this would have happened...

* * * * *

Narrator: In the 80s a lot more gritty action was injected into the mix...

1980s (lots of yelling and machine gun vocal effects, one accent American, one other accent of your choice)

Space Marine #1: The aliens are coming at us from all directions!

Space Marine #2: Look how many of them there are!

Space Marine #1: They're ugly bastards, aren't they!

Space Marine #2: Yep. Ack! Screw this machine gun!

Space Marine #1: What’s the matter with it?

Space Marine #2: This is the future! I should have a kick-arse laser right about now!

Space Marine #1: Your targeting sights are a laser...

Space Marine #2: (looks at comrade with an expression that says "SRSLY"...)

* * * * *

Narrator: In the 90s things still looked gritty but were they more or less realistic?

1990s (ponderous, wanky delivery, with mentor talking like a mystic of some sort)

Student: Look, mentor, aliens are approaching us!

Mentor: Ah, student, but are they aliens, or simply the sense impressions of aliens inserted into our synaptic passageways?

Student: You mean this could all be a virtual reality simulation?

Mentor: It could, and the truth may be even more shocking and sinister!

Student: So, what if you are a synaptic phantom too?

Mentor: My dear student, I am most definitely real. You, however, could be an illusion...

Student: Well then you won't mind if I do this... *gives Chinese Burn or similar jesting violence*

* * * * *

Narrator: Finally we come to the Twenty First Century, in which anything is as realistic as you want it to be...

2000s (excited and lively, any accents you want)

Human Hero: Hey robot buddy, look how realistic my power armour is!

Robot Buddy: Indeed, human hero, it is as if you are really wearing it.

Human Hero: I'm also super impressed at how realistically you move for something made of pixels.

Robot Buddy: Yes, it is thanks to Motion Capture from a celebrity break-dancer who does one mean robot walk.

Human Hero: Sweet. Hey, but look at this kick-arse cyber-attachment!

Narrator: *inserts sound and visual effects*

Robot Buddy: That is a most impressive plasma-charged laser!

Human Hero: Yes, and it even has an Attractor Ray setting... *waggles eyebrows*

Thanks to Alex and Ben who played the various roles and who did it with humour and verve.

Cross-posted here.

Labels:

25.2.16

Regenres

It is ten years since I posted this entry on the history of rock-and-roll or blues-derived popular music in its many-faceted form. In this post I will discuss whether I think anything much has changed in the decade since and look at some of the impediments to forming a coherent perspective on this topic.

One difficulty with mapping the family tree of popular blues-derived music is that there are far more names for sub-genres than I feel is warranted by authentic musical differences. There are any number of terms ending with the suffixes 'core' or 'wave' or 'hop' and much of this drive to name things comes from the desire of musicians or commentators or even fans to identify something they love as distict. In some cases the distinction is geographic - a music that is produced in the same manner on two sides of the Atlantic may get different names. In other cases it is generational in that a new term sometimes denotes a revival that lacks awareness of its own heritage.

Sometimes there are musical differences but they are so minute as to make one wonder why they bother. In electronic music there is a tendency to distinguish sub-genres on the basis of ranges of beats-per-minute. But I have to ask - if you take a particular track and change nothing but its speed then is that truly all it takes to shift it into a different sub-genre? If the change was sufficient to alter the response of listeners (from the relaxed groove of reggae to the frantic skank of ska for instance) then that could justify a genre distinction. But just a tiny turn of a dial? I think the issue here is simply the tribal desire to belong to a unique scene or the corporate drive to sell something as fresh.

If you reject this degree of specificity you face your own problems however. If I try and throw the net of definition wider and in a consistent way across all the music I'm considering then I need to find or re-apply terms that in some cases are more narrow in application. One case of my doing this is in using 'techno' to refer to all manner of electronic dance music forms. The fact that I acknowledge that it also refers to a more specific form and that my more general usage is something many other non-electronic fans do bolsters my case somewhat. But only somewhat. I'm still messing with words and in a way that may offend the afficionado.

If I dismiss a whole lot of changes as merely new words for existing things do I then think that anything has changed in the decade since I 'published' my musical essay? It will help if I can summarize the factors I think go into distinguishing genres as suggested in my Musical Genres 1955-2005. They pretty much divide into cultural factors and technological factors (which in turn impact on each other).

The adoption of a genre from one culture by another will inevitably result in the older genres embraced by that culture blending with the newly adopted genre. This is also true of sub-cultures such as youth 'scenes'. Sometimes a cultural practice other than music will also come into play - hippy musos playing blues while on mind-altering drugs resulted in psychedelia. The economic circumstances of particular demographics also contribute - playing on crappy dime-store guitars or re-purposing record players as instruments both spring to mind.

Instruments are a form of artifice so next we move to technological factors. There are many 'elements' of a musical composition and one that tends to be overlooked in defining genres is timbre. I personally find it important and so the kinds of instruments employed in producing particular genres is something I always listen for in a song. But I think it should take more than just substitution of the odd instrument and it should happen rapidly rather than with incremental slowness. Changing genre involves more than just auto-tuning your vocal recording.

All these potential changes need to pass the listening test. Texts can tell you all sorts of things but do you think rock or soul sound sufficiently different from the blues? Hopefully you do because they are! All-in-all I suspect that change across many characteristics is needed to justify a new tag. But I also suspect complete consistency is beyond my grasp. I will inevitably draw some lines more boldly than others as a result of my own preferences and vantage as an aging Gen-Xer. But it is time I made some substantive comments.

A big trend seen online is to take two existing tracks and edit parts of them together into a new song. This 'mashing' rarely if ever produces anything new. Sometimes it will involve the mixing of genres but any newness is incidental rather than the emergence of a new fusion. But just maybe this mass of attention-seeking experimenters in combining anything and everything will accidentally spawn a new sound that takes on a life of its own. I'm more inclined however to put trust in originality and a desire to express oneself personally rather than via the work of others.

The Internet facilitates all sorts of communication and even erodes the distinctions between different roles and functions. Someone with musical talent can now record a multi-track composition and then promote and even sell it online. A new generation of popular singer-songwriters like Lorde have come along and what they produce tends to have an ambient quality to it (which may itself be a result of the sounds they can access on home computers). These artists can be their own producer and promoter which is a radical change in relation to an aging and sometimes stuffy music industry. This may be a more responsive way for humans to develop new things. However for every trend there are counter-trends.

It seems that everything new is old again. There has been a growing interest in older genres as exhibited by projects like Postmodern Jukebox. A hardcore song will be performed by a hillbilly folk band or a hip-hop song will be performed by a swing-era jazz band. However playing a song in a different genre simply shifts it to that other genre. Whether this development will produce new genres is yet to be seen. It is however an interesting trend and may have something to do with a growing desire for authenticity in a technocratic and consumerist world. Possibly this is why we see such self-conscious retro experiments embraced by hipsters.

Another sub-culture I'm familiar with is nerds. Nerds are playing a role in musical developments but this is arguably nothing new. 70s progressive supergroups were the invention of college students but they were never ironically or self-consciously nerdy - they just did what they did and they did it well. For self-aware nerdiness in music we have to look to the somewhat more recent New Wave scene in the 80s and some of those bands (Devo, B52s, Oingo Boingo) fit the bill. Fast-forward to the Twenty First Century and nerd culture has impacted on a number of genres. Chiptune is a kind of techno that actively emulates the sounds of old computer games originating in Japan. However I feel some very old novelty tracks like Space Invaders by Player-1 did that too. The further back-and-forth you listen the more you can find that new things have incidental antecedents.

Something I think is new is dubstep. Distorting natural sounds has been happening for decades. Inventing artificial sounds is almost as old. But the way dubstep sounds to me is like artificial sounds are made and then distorted. The effect is of an electronic monster molesting a dance floor. This is arguably another level of development in electronic music. The name of dubstep is partly derived from dub - a studio-based relative of reggae - but listening to it suggests it is more akin to some of the more severe kinds of techno that have been creeping into other genres since my youth. Pop since the 80s has been partly electronic and that component of it has become increasingly central so that now the only way to distinguish many pop tunes from techno is to ask whether they take the form of a song rather than an instrumental. Is this a new genre? Or is it just an updated form of pop or a chart-oriented form of techno? Listen to the likes of Lady Gaga and decide for yourself.

Sometimes it feels like we have exhausted originality but I suspect that a continuing problem is a lack of global cultural cross-pollination. Even in the Twenty First Century music from beyond the Anglosphere only gets into our charts in the form of novelty dance hits or within underground world music scenes. Things are slowly changing however and once more the Internet comes into play. If an Australian is sick of charting pop they can always access Europop or Cantopop or any other international form. Even so what they may find is they have traveled more in time that in space. I for one find that a lot of foreign pop simply sounds like the charting music of my youth. It is as if the rest of the world is a generation behind the trends of the Anglosphere. But maybe I need to look further and escape global pop to find traditional or alternative forms of music. The biggest resistance to such a habit will come from the desire to understand a song. I would argue that one can 'understand' an instrumental in terms of mood but some insist in singing along.

What I have been seeing in the past decade is different ways of producing and consuming, different roles and relationships, different atmospheres, but rarely much new musically. Most of the music we have now is a revolving mix of what we had in the past. We are looking back over a total of sixty years of musical diversification and I feel as if the first three decades were more productive than the next three. Once you account for the tendency to over-name sub-genres it seems that the development of distinctly new forms of music has slowed. At most I think the trends I have discussed will be the ground in which innovation will eventually arise. Time is needed to say more.

Cross-posted here.

Labels: