You may remember the snippet of Guardian news, courtesy of El Pais, that I blogged about earlier this month. Well, it turns out that the outraged jazz fan who called the police to a jazz festival alleging that the music being played wasn’t jazz has some impressive support from other parts of the jazz world.
Wynton Marsalis contacted the Guardian seeking to be put in touch with the fan to thank him and send him a package comprising the bulk of Marsalis’ back catalogue. Having drawn a blank from the Spanish police and the town hall, the Guardian is appealing to its Spanish readers to find the fan and the Guardian will put him in touch with Marsalis.
Perhaps this could be regarded as some sort of warning to the directors of jazz festivals – play proper jazz or Marsalis will be in touch!
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Unholy Alliance - Round Two
On June 2nd, I blogged on a possible unholy alliance that might be coming to Llandrindod Wells Town Council between the Welsh Christian Party Leader, Jeff Green, maverick County Councillor Gary Price and Conservative County Councillor Sarah Millington. This was indeed, prescient, for all three got themselves elected at the subsequent by-elections.
Now they are flexing their muscles. At a recent meeting of the Town Council, these three, together with Cllrs Will Francis and Andrew Jones, combined to persuade the council to block a motion to support the proposed transfer of the Rock Park buildings from Powys County Council to a local trust which has leased and maintained the buildings for nearly 20 years.
Apart from this act of petty vindictiveness, the real triumph of this Christian/Maverick/Conservative alliance is to persuade the Town Council to hold its secret precept meeting at the headquarters of the Welsh Christian Party.
The precept meeting is the special meeting of the Council which decides on the council’s budget for the coming year and the amount of the precept that is added to council tax. Because of the sensitivities of deciding where the money is to be spent, this meeting, above all other meetings, should take place at a neutral venue rather than the home of the leader of the Welsh Christian Party. It is regrettable that this meeting continues to be held in secret at a time when local government is supposed to be moving to greater transparency, but to hold it at the home of one of the councillors, with the press and public excluded, is just asking for trouble.
Now they are flexing their muscles. At a recent meeting of the Town Council, these three, together with Cllrs Will Francis and Andrew Jones, combined to persuade the council to block a motion to support the proposed transfer of the Rock Park buildings from Powys County Council to a local trust which has leased and maintained the buildings for nearly 20 years.
Apart from this act of petty vindictiveness, the real triumph of this Christian/Maverick/Conservative alliance is to persuade the Town Council to hold its secret precept meeting at the headquarters of the Welsh Christian Party.
The precept meeting is the special meeting of the Council which decides on the council’s budget for the coming year and the amount of the precept that is added to council tax. Because of the sensitivities of deciding where the money is to be spent, this meeting, above all other meetings, should take place at a neutral venue rather than the home of the leader of the Welsh Christian Party. It is regrettable that this meeting continues to be held in secret at a time when local government is supposed to be moving to greater transparency, but to hold it at the home of one of the councillors, with the press and public excluded, is just asking for trouble.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
We Need A New Enlightenment
Climate-change deniers, Creationists and, Euro-sceptics – do they have anything in common? I ask simply because these groups are concerned with three societal and political issues that interest me most in that they seek to refute, not only conventional wisdom, but also in the case of climate-change deniers and Creationists at least, they are denying overwhelming scientific evidence.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am not Gordon Brown’s greatest fan, however his attack last week on the "flat-earth" climate-change sceptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming, certainly resonated with me. He was implicitly acknowledging that "flat-earthers" has become a generic term for those who are so totally irrational in their denial of what is self-evidently true, that one begins to doubt their sanity.
Similarly, in the year that we have celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, there remain considerable, and possibly growing, numbers of people across the world who would deny all the scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s Theory of Evolution relying simply on the alleged ‘revealed truth’ of sacred texts to support their view of how the world came into being.
There is clearly more room for debate over the issue of the European Union and Britain’s continued membership of it. However, what economic and social evidence there is, points to overwhelming benefits being derived by the British people from Britain’s membership of the Union, benefits that are likely to be enhanced after the recent ratification of the Reform Treaty.
Why do I link together the Climate-change deniers, the Creationists and the Euro-sceptics? Because I am beginning to think that there is much that they have in common. Many who would deny the evidence of climate-change also deny the theory of Evolution and all too frequently the same people wish Britain to uncouple itself from the very grouping of nation states that has ensured peace in Europe for over fifty years. These people represent a kind of modern day anti-enlightenment and would have us retreat to a kind of false Utopia, an ordered world where authority derives from an omnipotent deity, the actions of human beings have no consequences for the future of the planet and nations have no need to co-operate with other nations, and, of course, everyone lives happily ever after. Surely civilisation has moved beyond this kind of wishful thinking?
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am not Gordon Brown’s greatest fan, however his attack last week on the "flat-earth" climate-change sceptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming, certainly resonated with me. He was implicitly acknowledging that "flat-earthers" has become a generic term for those who are so totally irrational in their denial of what is self-evidently true, that one begins to doubt their sanity.
Similarly, in the year that we have celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, there remain considerable, and possibly growing, numbers of people across the world who would deny all the scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s Theory of Evolution relying simply on the alleged ‘revealed truth’ of sacred texts to support their view of how the world came into being.
There is clearly more room for debate over the issue of the European Union and Britain’s continued membership of it. However, what economic and social evidence there is, points to overwhelming benefits being derived by the British people from Britain’s membership of the Union, benefits that are likely to be enhanced after the recent ratification of the Reform Treaty.
Why do I link together the Climate-change deniers, the Creationists and the Euro-sceptics? Because I am beginning to think that there is much that they have in common. Many who would deny the evidence of climate-change also deny the theory of Evolution and all too frequently the same people wish Britain to uncouple itself from the very grouping of nation states that has ensured peace in Europe for over fifty years. These people represent a kind of modern day anti-enlightenment and would have us retreat to a kind of false Utopia, an ordered world where authority derives from an omnipotent deity, the actions of human beings have no consequences for the future of the planet and nations have no need to co-operate with other nations, and, of course, everyone lives happily ever after. Surely civilisation has moved beyond this kind of wishful thinking?
...Yes, But is It Jazz?
This morning the Guardian has a report telling of a Spanish jazz fan who called the police to a jazz festival complaining that the music played by a particular band were not playing jazz.
According to the report originating in El Pais: The jazz purist claimed his doctor had warned it was "psychologically inadvisable" for him to listen to anything that could be mistaken for mere contemporary music.
It reminded me about a conversation I had with a long-standing jazz fan from Nottingham in a John Etheridge and the Zappatistas gig at the Castle Hotel, Brecon a few years ago. I was enthusiastically applauding a particular set when the guy turned to me and said: “Yes, it is very good, but it is not jazz”. This led to a long conversation on what was, and what was not, jazz. Eventually we agreed to disagree, but became great friends and sought each other out at Brecon each year until his death a couple of years ago.
It has long struck me that so-called music purists sometimes miss the point. Music is to be liked or disliked, strict categorisation of pieces of music into particlar musical genres serves little useful purpose. This has been brought home to me again after reading a new book celebrating the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Miles Davis classic album Kind of Blue. Richard Williams in The Blue Moment places this legendary album in the context of what was happening in “jazz” at that time and traces the influence of Kind of Blue appears to have had on the music that followed. However, what is clear is that trying to define what is and what is not jazz, is ultimately pointless. If you like it, then sit back and enjoy it.
According to the report originating in El Pais: The jazz purist claimed his doctor had warned it was "psychologically inadvisable" for him to listen to anything that could be mistaken for mere contemporary music.
It reminded me about a conversation I had with a long-standing jazz fan from Nottingham in a John Etheridge and the Zappatistas gig at the Castle Hotel, Brecon a few years ago. I was enthusiastically applauding a particular set when the guy turned to me and said: “Yes, it is very good, but it is not jazz”. This led to a long conversation on what was, and what was not, jazz. Eventually we agreed to disagree, but became great friends and sought each other out at Brecon each year until his death a couple of years ago.
It has long struck me that so-called music purists sometimes miss the point. Music is to be liked or disliked, strict categorisation of pieces of music into particlar musical genres serves little useful purpose. This has been brought home to me again after reading a new book celebrating the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Miles Davis classic album Kind of Blue. Richard Williams in The Blue Moment places this legendary album in the context of what was happening in “jazz” at that time and traces the influence of Kind of Blue appears to have had on the music that followed. However, what is clear is that trying to define what is and what is not jazz, is ultimately pointless. If you like it, then sit back and enjoy it.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
The Shallowness of Labour?
So at long last, a British government is preparing to take electoral reform seriously, or is it? Today’s newspapers are reporting a plan by Labour to offer a referendum on limited electoral reform as part of its election manifesto.
Under normal circumstances, this would be an occasion for great celebration among those who advocate a fair electoral system as opposed to those who are content with the current first-past-the-post system whereby the majority of MPs are elected by a minority of the electorate. What is troubling is the apparent motive behind this move on the part of Labour.
The suggestion is that by offering such a referendum, Labour is seeking to wrong foot the Conservatives by attempting to portray them as defenders of an outdated and discredited first-past-the-post system. Put simply, Labour is attempting to gain party political advantage in the run up to the general election by promoting an issue which transcends party politics.
By all means propose the reform our outmoded and blatantly unfair electoral system, but do it because it is the right thing to do, and not because it might give an electoral advantage.
Under normal circumstances, this would be an occasion for great celebration among those who advocate a fair electoral system as opposed to those who are content with the current first-past-the-post system whereby the majority of MPs are elected by a minority of the electorate. What is troubling is the apparent motive behind this move on the part of Labour.
The suggestion is that by offering such a referendum, Labour is seeking to wrong foot the Conservatives by attempting to portray them as defenders of an outdated and discredited first-past-the-post system. Put simply, Labour is attempting to gain party political advantage in the run up to the general election by promoting an issue which transcends party politics.
By all means propose the reform our outmoded and blatantly unfair electoral system, but do it because it is the right thing to do, and not because it might give an electoral advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
