Break Glass for emergency Festive Moment...

I hate Christmas. Well, I don't hate it as such. It's not the Daily Mail, crying toddlers or television shows that celebrate idiocy. But I do despise many elements of what constitutes Christmas these days plus I figured such an outlandish opening statement may grab your attention. You can call me Scrooge McDuck for now.

Part of it stems from disguising shopping, spending and indulging as being about what was traditionally a holy and religious celebration of someones birthday. This is fairly typical of the consumer culture we in the Western world subscribe to. Take Valentines Day for example. Another 'holiday' whereby the pressure to sit in a restaurant full of couples all pretending it's just an average Pizza Express Tuesday night, in mawkish silences because no one could get a table at Zafferanos is all a bit unbearable. Valentines is so contrived these days you go through the motions just to make it in one piece and save face [or if things get ugly, your relationship]. I feel the same attitudes apply to Christmas.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the Christmas stretch, starting almost as early as September for a few brave idiots retailers. Sickening! I mean, September?! Wouldn't this remain a special time of year if this empty message of Yuletide and good will was reserved, in full sense of the term 'exclusively', for the month of December? It's difficult to remain animated and joyful when you have to do so for the latter third of an entire year, particularly as the days draw longer, colder and darker. Premature Christmas selling, celebrating or singing should be outlawed. Various indicators that anyone is sporting anything manger-ish, decorative or tree-shaped before December The First should be hit with an on the spot fine of crimes against decency.

Christmas Shoppers on Halloween. 
Image courtesy of http://thousandsofsignsandimstillalone.tumblr.com/post/12240646034/carelessbehavior-flowing-through-the-light-by via WeHeartIt

Worse still is the false pretence that Christmas is all about thinking why we're spending money, giving presents and getting shit-faced at office parties. Sorry, I mean thinking about the worth and message of the festive season and how rewarding this can be... I mean, giving things to people is nice! It feels good, that's the joy of gift-exchange. I'm just not sure what that specifically has to do with the larger con of Christmas Spirit.

See I just think that Christmas Spirit is now synonymous with simply shopping. Three Men and a Baby had nothing to do with shopping: all I gleamed from it was Tom Selleck's amazing Moustache.

The Nativity: Better told with a Moustache

Christmas is very much a celebration borne of culture, not religion. Jesus got fuck all for his 1st birthday and nothing much either for the 32 that followed. Maybe that's why we celebrate now. He's a vengeful god when He* wants to be and apparently we missed His kid's special day all those years ago.

*(It's officially a He. So it is written, before women could write.) 

The nativity doesn't really make sense in terms of what Christmas means to non-Christians these days, consumer culture in particular. All we take from it, as far as I can tell, is that some random Kings were told to give gifts to a new baby by an Angel and as a result of them following orders the bambino turned out to be a little bit special. This is the focus, in my opinion, that has been harnessed by the money-makers of society who have sneakily got very greedy in recent years. Out of this greed people have realised that the demands of children get the economy pumping much better than socialism, collective will or 80s attitudes to capitalism ever did. Dress it up as a family event and get people spending impulsively so any chance of saving [and jumping the next rung of the economic ladder?] can be eradicated as quickly as mulled wine in the company of a pensioner.

Tyrannojesus Rex?
Awesome Nativity image courtesy of http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=31395161

The aforementioned pressure for a successful Christmas: be it present-giving, cooking the right dinner, finding the right tree, decorating the house, sending out cards, providing entertainment and still finding room to be generous with charity donations is enough to make anyone relieved once its all over! Especially when a failure means, somehow, a disservice to the mystic Christmas Spirit when it appears to me, with my cynical Santa hat on, that all of these things require a little expenditure.

Or maybe, just maybe, all this humbug stems from the fact that through my education I held down jobs in retail. Retail: the lifeblood which feeds festivities by eating money from countless, clueless and crazy customers. There's nothing quite as soul-destroying as putting up with the ideals of family, Christmas joy, dinners and presents for three months when you're going to miss out on all of it once the time comes because you'll be needed back in from Boxing Day to deal with all the lifeless cheap pricks that are there from 6:00am because NEXT, in its infinite fucking wisdom decided that Boxing Day, of all days, would be the best day to hold a SALE! TWATS.  


I imagine that paragraph explained a lot of my festive resentment. Going shopping on Boxing Day is not what Christmas is about! However, to contrast what has been written here, I have a confession. I'm susceptable to change and in fact after a point, I actually begin enjoying this time of year. Despite the constant noise of "spend" and "give" and "be merry" and "festive falsehood/Christmas Spirit" there comes a point for me personally when its ok to fall into a happy little comfort zone, ignoring all capitalist leg-humping and instead relishing in the company of my family and friends. I've even been spotted on occasion wearing a Santa hat.

I call it the "Festive Moment". It usually fell on Christmas Eve when after a gruelling 12 weeks of retail propaganda I would stagger home, exhausted and disenfranchised. On that cold and lonely walk down my street, right before hitting the front door I would take a moment to pause and notice all of the lights, the trees, the effort, the warmth and the comforting thought all of my neighbours in their homes with their families, pets and presents and suddenly be a tiny bit glad for it all.

The real Spirit of Christmas!:DOING THIS! RAWR.

For me this is what Christmas is all about: "UNITY!" [Rick James, 1983. Via of course the superb Dave Chappelle Show]. Christmas shouldn't be so material. For me, it is about looking out for each other, looking forward to each other and celebrating each other. Being grateful for what you have, questioning what you need, reflecting the year and making plans for the next. It's about relaxing, indulging, watching movies, having fun with your friends and family and even in a small capacity, making kind gestures. Sometimes these can be in the form of presents. So long as they're not bought in the January sales.

My first "Festive Moment" happened a long time ago but each year I go through the motions and this year, got completely stumped on my last day in the office at my [insert appropriate adjective] job. On a particularly trying day I received a Tweet from my girlfriend, the famous-on-the-interweb From Desk Till Dawn [Tweet her! @FromDeskTilDawn].  She sent me the following song, from one of my favourite bands so I won't enquire as to why she was browsing BBC Radio 1's Youtube channel... Hearing it at my desk flooded me with joy, nostalgia and relief that not all Christmas songs are clichéd tripe. My faith in the season had been restored. It made me feel more positive about my last day, the upcoming break, recall memories of Christmases gone by, my family, the movie Home Alone obviously and, of course,  how much it was beginning...
to feel   

a  lot    

like 

Christmas. 

This piece is dedicated to her, Saint Hannah, to who I say thank you for 2011 x

Merry Christmas... you lot. Warm and smiles and fuzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Mondo x



Maccabees :) 

Facebook: Past, Present & Future

As with everything I've ever posted, this is way overdue and includes what could have been a number of separate observations I've now just bungled into one convoluted one (hence the title). It started life as a piece about how if Facebook was an actual friend, a person that you met with once or twice a day in a real setting, you wouldn't like them very much which I'll elaborate on now. But I've noticed some things recently which seem worth considering.

I envisioned they, Facebook as a human being, would be an irritable and over-informative gossip-hungry cretin, forever needlessly filling you in on pointless and trivial information about what everyone else is up to, trying desperately to get you react to something. A bit like if your personality resembled that of a celebrity-starved Heat magazine. Upon hearing these stories, the continued and constant encouragement for you to comment, react or disregard would become tiresome. You'd want to ask if this person had anything more pressing to discuss such as current news, world events or even sports results. But they'd probably just refer you to the internet, that other entity that exists alongside Facebook. Their only purpose in being your friend would be someone to share trivia with on topics that are forgotten once heard. You would tend to avoid this person if they ever existed in human form. Unless of course the prospect of esperiencing things only through the circles in which you are not a part of or cannot participate in is somehow appealing. 

However if Twitter was a real person, you'd be informed about the things you took an interest in: current news events, developments, technology, film, music, gigs, artists, exhibitions, television, newspapers, videos, blogs, games, social commentary etc. Facebook doesn't cater for information you find relevant in the same way that Twitter does with easily searchable and immediate updates, organising the most popular talking topics into 'Trends' so that you can easily catch up with what is being discussed at the time. As Facebook only deals with information about people who rarely bear any relevance to what you're doing, reading or witnessing it is held back in a big way. Facebook relies too heavily on other Facebook users wanting to share content with you and if they don't or you don't see it, there's difficulty in using the current search options to find it in any case. It acts as a filter for events, rather than a window into them. Twitter is way ahead of the game in terms of how it organises the data available to its users so that search items can be easily arranged and found when using these sites to access a particular subject matter.

Facebook has tried to counter this, some may say quite obviously. The most recent layout overhaul operates with 'borrowed' elements from both Tumblr and Twitter [Twumblr, if you will] more so than it ever admitted to doing previously by including a blatant status-reel, as well as enlarging the images on the regular Facebook newsfeed. Sharing content was made easier too in the same way that you can re-tweet or re-post something, features of Twitter and Tumblr respectively.

And there was the usual reaction that followed, from the global press about this event, something that never would have reached the news agenda a few years ago. It's absurd that reaction to a website structure that people willingly subscribe to dominates the news sites but this is surely because at least some of the 750 million users watch and read the news. The announced developments were the obvious changes to Facebook. There are other forces at work here though and I'll come back to this point shortly.

I recently finished You Are Not A Gadget by Jaron Lanier, a book charting the inception and development of the internet. Covering topics such as the influence of on-line communications to the off-line world (or vice versa) as well as the advent of social networking, the concerns surrounding anonymous on-line activity and how much of the technology we experience, such as MP3 format, came about by accident, or fluke. Essentially, Lanier depicts humans investing too much in technology and the detrimental effect this has on human social experience, the economy, science, employment, security, behaviour and the manifestations in the wake of these developments. We've built and contributed to something that is larger than us, yet we still have time to direct its path, is what I think he said.

Facebook features in the book and this is interesting because it's not a continually updated blog or news item, yet still predicts much of what is true today. However, one thing Lanier did not predict envision or at least didn't write down (because he is incredibly smart) is a fairly major development that I can now see happening across various sites and platforms of communication. 

Some will still regard Facebook as another fad, a product of the evolution of the internet which like so many sites before it have come and gone relatively quickly, particularly in economic terms. However, it's no longer only a brand but a verb and this shift makes something very difficult to ignore or dilute: growth is the only way forward after this point. This transgression past what may have been seen as 'disposable' popular culture into something much wider spread and mainstream helps secure its own legacy.

Image courtesy of - 9gag [please don't 'Like']  via weheartit.com

In my opinion, this particular phenomenon has encouraged the technophobic and those not up to speed with modern technology / computers to acknowledge and embrace the use of the internet, using Facebook as its platform. Essentially, they join in for the same reason we all do: fear of missing out. Exclusion is rarely an attractive option and if something becomes such a prominent subject or conversation in real spaces, you're inevitably going to feel left out. What do the following terms mean if you don't use Facebook? "Tagging", "liking", "commenting", "adding a friend", "updating your status", "checking in" and "poking"? It's an alien terminology that has to be experienced to be learnt and understood. Participation is essential and I believe this has motivated many people to join. Crucially, two categories of user can be applied to the excluded: older generations and younger generations of adulthood. They both are subject to exclusion in real settings whereby the internet is concerned. Children want to grow up so quickly and the elderly don't want to be left behind. I know these are huge generalisations but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from!

The progression from this surge in membership is to make Facebook a preferred way of accessing content online. You never used to have to log in to browse the internet but it seems commonplace now that the line between Facebook and the rest of the online world is becoming a little blurred or at least, the average user may feel like logging in is part and parcel of browsing online. Many sites now offer the option of directly linking to your Facebook page so if you leave a comment other users know who you are. There are good and bad points to this, with bigger questions to be asked about why this can benefit or hinder the development of the internet. Without getting into too much detail it can restrict anonymous abuse simply because your details from Facebook will be assigned to the comment or input that you've contributed, if the page is publicly viewable. The downside is the need for some contributions to remain anonymous or operate under pseudonyms.

Also, nearly all media now has an official Facebook page; some advertising and marketing campaigns are conducted exclusively through it, and perhaps for good reason. By opting in you can receive updates and information from the official source for things you may ordinarily search for on the web. It's an exhaustive point but again this says to me that users are getting a little... lazy. It's easier to see information come up on a page you may already be checking into. I'm not going to debate what intention brings users to Facebook in the first place: It's either media and entertainment or the need to check up on friends. All I know is this one truth: Facebook wants its users to spend as much time as possible browsing their pages once logged in. It tells advertisers that people have more chance of seeing their brand and message if they're spending a few minutes scavenging through the home feed, creating more opportunities for their eyes to hover over a particular banner.

Confusingly, it appears Facebook feels that the more varied the content on display for users, the more options they have and this in turn leads to a better 'experience'. Even though I don't feel it will die a cultural death such as Myspace, I find it to now be as cluttered, broken and disconnected as a site that is dwindling in popularity. Compared to how it used to operate or make you feel as a user, there's definitely less connecting: people have been put off by the constant evolutions, are simply not using it in the same way or have jumped ship to the altogether more contemporary Twitter in order to feel a part of something wider-reaching.

Facebook is no longer a buzzword. Therefore, Facebook is no longer 'cool'. It has become too mainstream, too integrated into people's lives and is now so commonplace it will struggle to capture people's attention in quite the same way. However, by moulding users into people that can browse the internet I see future developments including one final evolution into that of a browser interface. It may as well: Facebook can actively push users into more spaces it controls or that its advertisers want them to see. The more that people subscribe to sharing and passing on their personal information freely, the less autonomous the Facebook experience will become. 

Google defied sceptics with the success of its own Chrome browser proving that daring to step out on to already occupied ground can be a relatively easy feat to achieve if executed correctly. They relied on user feedback to help Chrome evolve yet Facebook operates by imposing changes regardless. As so many people are used to using Facebook and crucially, adapting their browsing experiences as and when Facebook dictates them to do so (such as changing a layout) there's no fear in it taking a few risks in order to enforce change. They can afford the outcry as the majority will stay.

Above is my projection of how Facebook will look in a year's time. A little crude but I feel that soon, people's browsing habits will be up for display as much as their thoughts and opinions. This will help advertisers even more so and as it appears they rule the roost in nearly all aspects of commerce and living, I won't be the least bit surprised.

I still use Facebook but I'm trying, slowly, to ween myself off. I'm tired of communicating using only my 'thumb' for approval. Facebook is guilty of eroding social graces, making online conversations appear over-formal and inconvenient. Much like, I have to admit, Twitter and Tumblr. For some reason the Facebook platform feels more unsociable perhaps because it is only your 'friends' who you're meant to be in touch with. I also feel that most of what I post on Facebook is ignored by the majority of people I have befriended over the years because we simply don't have that much in common or it isn't what they use Facebook for. It is not the communicative utopia I thought it would evolve into upon joining up whilst at University all those years ago, my younger bright-eyed self clearly showing too much faith in people using the internet in profound ways. Back then, the potential for Facebook represented an exciting future of sharing ideas, discussion forums, making memories, expanding social networks and promoting diversity, development and real change in society. Now I just feel like a used commodity that subscribed to something I no longer recognise or want to be a part of. It simply doesn't feel like being a part of Facebook, for all that it has the potential to be, is doing the world any good.

I'll still continue to be on Facebook, for the time being. For the memories stored in photos, for event invites and for my friends.
But mostly because everyone else is.

Mondo

Birth... Takes 9 months right?

I've made a habit of writing about writing. Or lack of writing. But to be honest, this is the first thing I've written in exactly 9 months. To the day. Check the previous post. See?

A lot has happened. Not in my life, in the past few weeks. It's funny because I was going to write about oral hygiene. It's a topic that has floated some of my concerns the last 9 months but it's hardly a gripping subject for a comeback.

The News Of The World. Rupert Murdoch. The Sun. NewsCorp. News International. It's all come tumbling down. It's a huge relief. It's somewhat inspiring.

I know the circumstances surrounding its downfall are not pretty and it's wrong perhaps of me to take so much enjoyment in admitting that I'm glad they've committed such hideous malpractice and been caught out for it. I'm glad that everyone is finally getting to see the very seedy, gruesome underworld that is the tabloid press in this country. My first experience was seeing my cousin, someone who started a career in the public eye, be pushed into a mental breakdown by activities carried out by The Sun et al and whilst this only plays a marginal part in the reasons behind why I loathe such publications, I feel it worth mentioning because it helps cement the basis for my opinions on these matters.

The other reason I wanted to mention the disturbing amount of joy I am gleaming from this 'Hackgate' situation [NB adding 'gate' is a shit practice and I regret typing or subscribing to this lazy categorization of public events - this won't happen again!] is because this is what has kept me from writing for so long. I'm forever concerned that I may upset someone or that my opinions may not fall in line with everyone else's'. But expressing myself is one of my passions and someone very recently pointed out that I don't need to reassure everyone that I'm one of the good guys. This should hopefully come through in what I write, how I behave and what I say.

So to Murdoch & NOTW & the Sun: to the tabloid culture, to the bullying pressure that has been placed on politicians, to the influence on popular culture and absurd campaigns, hatred of foreigners, public enemies, mistrials, idiot celebrities, police corruption, phone hacking, paparazzi, blatant sexism (Page 3 anyone) and the blind, constant, imbecilic HYPOCRITICAL bullshit that you call press publications - farewell. It's been great hating you.

Should quickly add - this whole thing wouldn't have been possible without Twitter. Not 'Social Media' - it was fucking Twitter you pussy-footed stone-age hacks who won't admit that actually, this micro-blurb community encouraged more public involvement and spreading of breaking news than anything else you printed could have hoped for. This could never have happened in any time prior to the development of the internet and a platform for sharing information instantly and with such impact. It was the pressure on advertisers that temporarily killed them [the advertisers] off [they'll all be back] but the message regarding the 'public outcry' has never been more vivid. And outcry costs money. Well, it didn't used to but it does now.

I knew writing this would make me feel good. When I checked this page today & saw that 2000 people had viewed it since I last bothered I concluded that I must be doing something right, or at least I did before. So here's one final pledge to me keeping up with this writing lark. Once you've read this, I'll be getting off on the statistic you made to the right of the screen. So, cheers!

Twatter (Twitter) for Beginners (twats)

Like most things other people recommend I'm instantly dismissive.

With Twitter however, I felt like there was something I was beginning to miss out on, and this is, in part, due to something I like to call 'The BBC Effect'.

Anything that passes through the mouths of broadcasters on the Beeb indicates at that point in time that something has literally broken the mainstream. It happened first with Myspace which the BBC cheekily utilised to casually advertise, well, everything, from their shows to their personalities. Then Facebook came along and similarly stopped making social networking all weird and taboo. Now Twitter too is slowly becoming a subject that people can safely discuss down the pub, without fear of being ostracized or people in proximity suddenly walking away.

++ IMPORTANT NOTE ++
The following are still on the "not ok to announce membership or knowledge of in a public setting" category:

- World Of Warcraft

- Second Life

- BeBo (unless you're 13 years old. No younger, no older, just 13)

- Adult Friend Finder

- Match.com

- Myspace. Yes, even if you're in a band. If you're not big enough for I-Tunes or Spotify then who gives a shit what you sound like?

"So what is this Twitter Phenomenon?"

Assuming readers (that's you) are familiar with Facebook it's essentially a catalogue of status updates. However unless stated otherwise your tweets (posts) are publicly available for the whole wide internets to see. What this means is: you're at any one time possibly connected with the whole world, on a platform that expresses itself in 140 characters or less. Wait for it... yes! That's the same as a text message! The coincidence is uncanny.

So... why bother? Well from my experience (a few months) I think the beauty is in searching for given topics that the whole world is currently talking or thinking about. You can search for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" and see what other people are saying about it. The most popular topics 'Trend' whereby they show up on your page so you can see what everyone is mentioning. It's the organisation of these lists that I believe offers the appeal. That and celebrities.

The culture of celebrity has evolved. What they used to get up to was reliant on word of mouth, then the photographic press, then interviews, talk shows, documentaries and entertainment channels. Now you can effectively see, in real time, what your idols are up to. It's another avenue into a world most people aspire to be a part of. I admit that I too am guilty of trying to interact with celebrities on Twitter. I'm also guilty of the immense pleasure felt when receiving a response from a celebrity.

"They jump, we follow"
It's the whole acceptance thing. Being for one second interesting enough for a mild deity to acknowledge you in passing. It harks back to that feeling of euphoria: of learning that a soap star is sharing your hotel in the Canary Islands; of blagging an autograph or better still a picture with an old ITN weatherman you saw in Wimpy off the M1; or of catching a glimpse of Ant 'N Dec sharing a quiet drink in a pub, in Chiswick that you are also drinking in. This is about as close as I can get in how to describe it.

The reason a mention or a 'Re-Tweet' (figure it out) is so golden in the Twitterverse is not only because of membership but the potential expansion of your own popularity.

For example: Much as I despise Kanye West I thought it was funny that he chose for a day or two to follow some nobody teenager from Stoke or somewhere equally shite in the UK who had paid him a compliment. No doubt plucked completely at random as Kanye has around 3-4 million followers he could have chosen from, the result was that this guy was flooded with thousands of requests. Perhaps it was something of an experiment by Mr Jesus K. West and, whether he meant it or not, it had the effect of highlighting the power of celebrity. Essentially, they jump and we follow.

This boring teenager's life got momentarily turned upside down by an influx of users, news groups, bloggers, and fans, an entire community of people all over the globe wanted to see the same thing - "what all the fuss was about". Poor boy never stood a chance* but what he achieved in that short glimmer was a truckload of followers.

*Kanye went back to following no one after a day or two, and at the time of posting is now following 15 super models. GANGSTAH.


"Tweet from the Chaff"
Whilst I may have prematurely overlooked this, another crucial attraction to Twitter is the prospect of 'fans'. Much like how censoring yourself on Facebook can make you (like a celebrity) appear to be good-looking, popular and outgoing, Twitter covers the missing element of the celebrity lifestyle - fandom. You're basically in competition with every other user in order to obtain followers, people who are interested in what you have to say. The retaining of these followers will in turn, secure more followers, as  human nature dictates there is always safety in numbers and if it is popular, it works.

So, if a celebrity ReTweets you, there's every chance one of their thousands of dedicated followers will recognise you as someone worth taking note of. The reality is that it is often a one-off. Most users, myself included, will try and remain entertaining but will get desperate eventually. We'll want to rant, whinge and repeat the mundane self indulgent thoughts we have. And the reason we have for this is:

Once we have an audience secured, it's easy to forget why. Bands are often guilty of this, as are movie stars, as they won't care either way because life in the real world is often sweet enough. Comedians on the other hand are more inclined to make the most of Twitter because for them, it's another platform or stage to work from. Comedians have learnt that it's better to carve a niche and stick to it, because die-hard fans will always stick around and are a great audience with which to showcase new work.

John Cleese once said "the hardest thing in the world, the absolute hardest thing - is to be really, really funny." I can't neglect that I don't try but I fall short in trying too hard and whilst I believe firmly in quality over quantity, I probably tweet too much.

I originally joined Twitter to direct people to this excuse of a blog. Now I enjoy the small community of followers I have from those I choose to indulge.It's like an anonymous Facebook Mini-Feed but it's more interesting, as you're not stuck with these people like you are with say, family or friends that it would be impolite to de-friend. Because all you are is a "follower" on Twitter, it's less insulting to leave as the connotations in the label are not as strong. This allows you to sort the tweet from the chaff so you're not constantly sifting through people you find uninteresting, or can't spell, or tell you about how shit the weather is or some other trivial bollocks.

The gap between followers and those you follow holds significance in the Twatosphere. A quick tip for helping you separate the interesting users from generic follower-hungry can be calculated as thus:

(Following / 2) x 0.6 = Followers. Or something.

If the number of followers is about the same as the following, you can guarantee that person is shallow, uninteresting, and has probably missed the point somewhere, as they're literally following all of their followers. Those people that don't feel that this is necessary are far more likely to actually entertain you as opposed to seeking your approval.

My last admission: I'm looking to expand. I'm a born soap-boxer, attention whore and frequenter of adventures and Twitter is a great avenue to indulge these pleasures in a short, quick fix, for free, and to something of a test audience. I wish more people I knew in real life were on it, to help push things forward but for now I'll rely on #Hashtags,** slagging off popular icons, being cynical, lyrical, abysmal and woeful.

** Topics with a Hash (#) pre-fix turn grouped words into a link, helping to form trends easier by making them more noticeable to other users

If I hold out long enough, I'll live out my dream: to be famous on the Internet. I want my own cliquey social circle of minor celebrities dammit.

Twat me. I leave you with the Fail Whale.

Mondo x

Courtesy of http://laughingmeme.org/tag/twitter/

We Used To Wait

"If I could have it back, all the time we wasted, I'd waste it again"

Released to you, the glowing public today, is the fourth third album by Canadian Montreal based Arcade Fire, one of my favourite bands, if not my most celebrated live act. Upon seeing them originally in 2005 at the Brixton Academy, and treating my little sister to her first ever gig, I remember leaving as the lights came up and warning her: "This is it. You won't ever see a better gig. This may as well be your first and last!" Five years on she did see a better gig. It was them again, last month, at a 'fans only' showcase hosted by London's own Hackney Empire.

It was here that I was reminded of the on-stage magic and simultaneously treated to the first plays of their new material, which as sister put it "seems to have progressed with the times". A lot of the reviews I've read of Arcade Fire are alluding to the content of the lyrics, and the themes of the albums, as if any of that matters. Not criticisms, just sort of high-brow allusions to an appraisal of their poetry, which is nice and everything but more like a book review than that of a highly anticipated 16-track 'difficult' third album. I personally think they are just incredibly creative, brave and progressive in the face of the rock genre which is seeing more reprisals of old, paradigm shifts towards electro and dance and a lack of raw material. They seem to have walked the fine line by making things a little more 'fun' whilst remaining sensible enough to adhere to the themes and styles of old: Basically what the fans and the journalissamoes are familiar with: and are almost expecting.Yes, I'm referring to you, good reader.

The Suburbs is a mix of fast and slow, jingles and jangles, architecture and angles, thrills spills and spangles. It kicks off with title track the Suburbs, which upon first hearing I had written off as a slow and lazy effort. Wrong. Much like everything on this album, and the general theme of this work is that it is a progression, and the following track Ready to Start, is another shining example. However Ready to Start is of a much faster tempo, as if to remind you that there's more to them than the first 3 minutes would suggest. If tempo is your tipple listen out for Month of May and Empty Room, the latter boasting the most ridiculously frenetic violin opener.

In contrast, some of the album sounds like a much slower paced soundtrack (albeit a really good one) and is full of catchy sing-a-longs such as the mellow Modern Man, with it's sketchy base riffs, and City With no Children which sounds... gosh, a little eighties for some reason. Which leads me nicely on to my favourite track: Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains) which I decided yesterday sounded like a splice between Cyndi Lauper, The Knife and Talking Heads. How many bands can cite those three as a creative influence in making just one song that stands out like a glamorous sore thumb.

The thing is... what I loved about Arcade Fire initially, was their free reign to simply change the entire song halfway through. I think this is what in the early days caught my ear: that on Funeral they were starting songs off like a post-invasion Radiohead track and ending it on crescendos that were reminiscent of The Supremes. I think on this album, there is a lack of this spontaneity: what you get at the start of the song is generally what you hear as it closes. This has more of an impact on their live performances as the newer songs will struggle to take prominence when compared to songs like Crown of Love, or the show-stopper, Wake Up. These older anthems give licence to go more mental, and in my opinion, as good as this album is, it lacks this element which fans like me may have appreciated.

That is, perhaps, the only downside. I think this record has more legs on it than their second installment which I loved initially being a super-biased-fan and overall, this is going to be a highlight of 2010. It's got a lot more humour to it, and as a front-man, Mr Butler also portrays this on stage, usually alongside his mental brother William. There's a song all about Chess, Deep Blue, which for a geek like me is bound to strike a chord.

"You could never predict it, that it could see through you, Kasparov - Deep Blue (nineteen, ninety-six!)"

We Used To Wait is another highlight, and may well be their next single. Placing this towards the end of the album ensures the balance required to engage you from start to finish, as well as the tracks Sprawl I and Sprawl II, the aforementioned 80s influenced fnisher. The two songs form a cleverly performed story, one half being sung by Win Butler and the conclusion by his equally talented partner Régine Chassagne. This is all topped off by the Suburbs reprise, which neatly brings you back to the start.

"Sometimes I can't believe it...
I'm moving past the feeling, again"



Mondonomy x

THE WIRE : An introduction

Ironically, the post previous to this one was harking on about an active social life yet today as that was posted I found my circles of friends were suddenly closed, and was forced to stay in.

It just so happened then that today I managed to download Season One of The Wire, a series I hold no qualms over calling "the greatest ever" and you've probably heard that from everyone else who has ever stumbled across or been introduced to this show. So this evening, I've decided to watch this program again, in its entirety, so I can re-evaluate just why this is such a cultural landmark and why you the reader should be investing in spending 60 hours of your life with this story.

Calling it a "show" is a little demeaning perhaps. It's more like an insight into a whole world that remains intriguing without being patronizing,  and entertaining whilst not being melodramatic. It can even lead to discomfort when you see fairly soon into the opening episode how much effort went into achieving the gritty realism that has ensured this will be talked about for generations. The Wire is so unflinching and so tragically based around the true reasons behind human nature and reaction it's hard to adapt to the regular platforms of televised entertainment after watching. There is simply nothing like it.

'Poot', Bodie, D'Angelo Barksdale and Wallace - drug-slingin' in 'The Pit' - a housing project in the slums of West Baltimore.

Now I already know there's about 500,000 blogs and articles about The Wire already available on the internet, by many better writers than myself and some of whom I admire, however I'm not sure this is any reason to qualify me not writing my own appreciations. I'm going to avoid spoilers but instead touch upon themes of the show, and elements I enjoy, and will try and warn you if anything I'm about to say may damage your experience of the series.

My advice to you is this: don't search for information on the internet regarding the The Wire, if you want the best experience from it. There's spoilers everywhere, even images that you'll know you haven't seen which therefore potentially ruin outcomes. This is a no-holds-barred look at life in West Baltimore, and this means that in "the Game" anyone is game. You've been warned....

Detective McNulty, a major protagonist of the show is a destructive alcoholic anti-hero with the best moral intentions at heart.

This isn't some bullshit 24 style program where the hero gets to return season after season to repeatedly save the world. This program doesn't adhere to stereotypes much either: if there's a lot of black guys who are involved in the drug trade in West Baltimore, that is because black guys are involved in the drug trade in West Baltimore. The show is written and portrayed as true to life as possible by being based on books written by the creators David Simon and Evan Burns. THe dialogue, crucially, is also realistic which is perhaps what I enjoy the most. There's no dwelling on character names, and no introductions either, so if you don't pay attention you'll get left behind. It's a slow-paced momentum building thriller so it isn't too difficult to keep up but it doesn't hurt to watch with someone else. I watched nearly every episode with an old girlfriend and admittedly, it's not quite the same watching it again on my own...

This is almost definitely because the show has many strong talking points. (and the fact that she was awesome like that, of course). Events unfold slowly at first, and then you are privy to the reactions of the initial action. And it's fascinating.

The ripples potentially created by a throwaway comment overhead by the wrong people or a thrown away and overlooked piece of evidence are vast. The Wire seeks to delve into exactly what the repercussions of incompetence, be it bureaucracy in the police department or a slip up in the criminal world, are and how they effect one another for better or worse. To see how far the trail goes is what will get you hooked.

Stringer Bell observes behavior in one of the opening scenes involving a court hearing for attempted murder.

Having seen the whole thing from start to finish, I have to say in retrospect I told people it started off slow. Perhaps the privilege of seeing everything once before and knowing the outcome helps but I thought the pilot episode was a lot more insightful and memorable than I first recall, and cannot see now why people don't make it past this. The names perhaps are one thing, as I recall rewinding it the first time I watched in order to get the names of the criminals, who aren't involved as much as the introductions of the police.

The major theme of the first episodes is the monotony of the job. The buraeacracy behind decisions that shatter all preconceptions about police dramas and the upholding of the law. The issues they face are the same we all face: incompetence from senior management, performance figures being more important than individual integrity, career driven, lazy, clumsy, impulsive, care-free and publicly minded only when it comes to the press: and this is all the police department. The criminals are the complete opposite: organized, disciplined, smart, rehearsed, resourceful, tenacious and calculating. As we're being introduced to this culture of police and criminals existing side by side within the framework of rules that depict their pieces on the board (another major theme being the game) it's difficult to accept that for these people, that is simply another corpse, another beating, another crime unsolved. It is the life they know and accept, and this in itself is something of a revelation.

Detectives McNulty and Bunk, with Lietenant Greggs sitting behind, interrogate a murder suspect.

Without giving anything away however, the opening episodes touch upon the disenfranchised members of the police department taking action against the frustration of their true powerlessness and whilst this manifests itself differently across departments, this again proves that this is not one-dimensional. Players on the same side don't necessarily have the same vested interests. This isn't CSI where there is a crime that needs to be solved. The world isn't that black and white, in New York, Miami, Las Vegas or Baltimore.

The Wire is the answer to you taking action against the mundane shit that passes for televised entertainment. If you want to be challenged, if you want to think about what is unfolding before you, if you want to learn about some of the issues people face when involved in the jobs that make up our wider society: then get involved and thank your lucky stars for HBO programming.

To make it easy for you, here's the opening scene to the first episode of the first season. The trivial opening dialogue against the backdrop of the scene you'll see is exactly the sort of estranged evaluation of monotony and humanity I referred to earlier. The 'rules' are all there too.



Mondo 'McNulty'