The Canadian Women's Ice Hockey team at the Winter Olympics defeated local rivals the USA to win the gold medals for the event. According to Yahoo! News, what followed was a censure for their celebration - of swigging beer and smoking a cigar each.
Now, it is true that when male sports stars celebrate in "exuberant" fashion, there is a certain amount of wrist-slapping that follows, and the nation gets to "tut-tut" for a while. But seriously: the equivalent event in 2005 in cricket saw the male stars of the England team get plastered all night long, and turn up drunk to meet the Queen, and what most people really felt was "good on 'em, they deserve to have a good time!" A few years earlier, star of the show Mark Butcher admitted in the post-match interview to having a ciggie break during the only match England won against Australia that year (although he then said "probably shouldn't have said that!")
So 70 minutes of goofing about with booze and cigars seems small beer by comparison (colloquialism chosen deliberately!) Indeed, the spokesman for the Canadian Olympic Committee said it was not an uncommon form of celebration.
It's hard to know whether or not the issue here is the IOC being over-officious about the whole thing, trying against all reason to maintain an ultra-squeaky-clean veneer to the games' image, or whether it really is an over-reaction because instead of men behaving like this, it's a women's team doing it instead. Perhaps the most telling point is that the incident mentioned in the Yahoo! News article of Jon Montgomery swigging a large pitcher of beer, it's hard to find an article anywhere criticising him for his behaviour. The reaction searching Google News is much more circumspect to the women's celebration (a choice one came from a US domain name containing the word "republican", you can imagine what that was like!)
One cannot help but feel that it is the fact that this is "unladylike" behaviour that factors into these criticisms (and playing ice hockey in the first place ISN'T unladylike!?) and not a genuine "horror" that successful sports stars act like everyone else when they celebrate a victory. (I have a vision now of sports stars putting on bibs that read "Enjoy Alcohol Responsibly" before celebrating...)
One other thing: I found an article from The Ottawa Citizen claiming that Canadian women outscore the men in medals because they have equal funding for their sports. I can't speak to how true that is, but the article's interview comments are interesting. I also don't buy the story that if there were equal numbers of men and women the medal-count would necessarily even out because "due to sheer numbers, it is far tougher to rise to the top as a male than it is as a female". Seems to me it may be the case in an individual nation, but once you're at the top, to win international competitions you still have to be able to beat the best of the best from every other nation as well.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Album review: The Hearth and the Hive by Talis Kimberley
Talis Kimberley is one of the great talents of British filk music, and her latest album, The Hearth and the Hive (available here) is a magnificent showcase of her music. The overall theme of the album is sustainability - and the consequences that face humanity if we continue to live beyond our means. The refrain of "Jam Tomorrow" in particular captures this spirit: "When the Queen says, 'Jam tomorrow'/ But we've sold tomorrow's jam/ Fiddle-dee-dee".
From the blues/jive rhythms of that same Jam Tomorrow and Vitruvian Man to the more folk style backing on tracks like Kitchen Heroes, or the rock beat of Wolf at Your Door, the energy of the performances ring through in every track. Even the softer, slower numbers maintain a tension and energy of their own; the subject matter helps with that, especially on "World's End", but the quality of the performance is what makes this collection so listenable.
But the main thrust of this album is the lyrics - the poetry and the topics. As mentioned, the theme is ecological sustainability, but not all the songs are directed at that purpose. perhaps the most surprising song in this light is "Jonathan's Coffeehouse", which is about the community of stockbrokers at the London Stock Exchange - perhaps the most striking (and poignant) passage is the verse that recounts the tale of the Pals Battalion (the story is included in that Wikipedia link). But the spirit of how I guess those people see themselves - the bright builders of the future and wealth - comes through in the song, and in its bright energy.
The "storytelling" style of song runs through this album, almost as a weft to the ecological warp; it's a basis of much folk music, but it's not always done as deftly as it is here. Often the story is almost an undertone behind the message of a song, and upholding it: for instance, "Cassandra" is on the surface of it talking about the need for reporting things as they are, especially the bad news, but the reporter has her own story unfold through the message (I won't spoil the ending, for that you need to hear the song and read the sleeve notes!)
Some of the most remarkable songs are the ones that seem to take us into the land of Faerie; where the theme of the song is not a story or a message but describing something that echoes from the otherworldly stories: "When I Was a Mermaid", with its haunting refrain: "And sometimes my stories are true"; "Blackthorn Winter"; and I feel also "My Lady of the Underpass", which brings the Faerie into the modern realm and carries with it some of the storytelling (about struggling to find something to believe in) that I mentioned before.
Without a doubt, this is an emotional album to listen to - at least, it was for me. The strongest reaction for me was saved for a song called "Ladybird Year", which struck right into the heart of feelings I had when I was growing up, with lyrics such as "and to think that I was pretty that year/ kind of a shame I never knew/ Because I wasn't as brave as I tried to seem". I've already started working on a cover version because of how strongly it expresses those feelings and I'd like to be able to say it that well!
The most spooky song on the album is "World's End". If you've seen movies about surviving apocalyptic events, then you'll have an idea what this is about. Here, "World's End" is the isolated village where the narrator fled just in time to avoid the collapse of society and destruction of the major population centres. With the theme of impending ecological and economic disaster in the other songs, the message is clear: "this could really happen". If the other songs are about, "We need to do something!" then this one is about, "What if we don't do anything?"
What of the other songs with the sustainability message? "Kitchen Heroes" is about the fact that behind every obvious hero there has to be a support crew - the people who look after "The Hearth and the Hive". And without these people, of course, there would be no people at all. "Jam Tomorrow" states most directly the problems with the way economics are run at present, and the unsustainable nature of modern capitalism. "Vitruvian Man" returns to the theme of the skills and talents that can make life sustainable; this time suggesting that when certain resources (*ahem* petroleum *ahem*) have run out, we'll be back to a Mediaeval way of life and Leonardo Da Vinci will once again be the height of technological advancement (I'm not convinced of that personally - I think a bit more than that would survive - but it makes a great song!) "Wolf at Your Door" directly precedes "World's End" on the album, and probably also is what just precedes it in a storyline as well: it's the middle-class businessman wondering why suddenly things aren't working the way they should in his cocooned world - he complains about the television cutting off, and the paperboy not coming, and wondering why "someone" doesn't "do something" to fix it all.
If my dear readers haven't yet figured it out, I love this album and think everyone should buy it (that link at the top of the review - go on, everyone!) The environmental message, while perhaps overstated at times (but of course, artistic licence applies!), is an important one and clearly stated in ways that make the arguments for change much more powerful - some of these could be anthems for the environmentalist/anti-capitalism causes. The other songs are equally powerful in different ways (I've already mentioned how one in particular affects me!)
From the blues/jive rhythms of that same Jam Tomorrow and Vitruvian Man to the more folk style backing on tracks like Kitchen Heroes, or the rock beat of Wolf at Your Door, the energy of the performances ring through in every track. Even the softer, slower numbers maintain a tension and energy of their own; the subject matter helps with that, especially on "World's End", but the quality of the performance is what makes this collection so listenable.
But the main thrust of this album is the lyrics - the poetry and the topics. As mentioned, the theme is ecological sustainability, but not all the songs are directed at that purpose. perhaps the most surprising song in this light is "Jonathan's Coffeehouse", which is about the community of stockbrokers at the London Stock Exchange - perhaps the most striking (and poignant) passage is the verse that recounts the tale of the Pals Battalion (the story is included in that Wikipedia link). But the spirit of how I guess those people see themselves - the bright builders of the future and wealth - comes through in the song, and in its bright energy.
The "storytelling" style of song runs through this album, almost as a weft to the ecological warp; it's a basis of much folk music, but it's not always done as deftly as it is here. Often the story is almost an undertone behind the message of a song, and upholding it: for instance, "Cassandra" is on the surface of it talking about the need for reporting things as they are, especially the bad news, but the reporter has her own story unfold through the message (I won't spoil the ending, for that you need to hear the song and read the sleeve notes!)
Some of the most remarkable songs are the ones that seem to take us into the land of Faerie; where the theme of the song is not a story or a message but describing something that echoes from the otherworldly stories: "When I Was a Mermaid", with its haunting refrain: "And sometimes my stories are true"; "Blackthorn Winter"; and I feel also "My Lady of the Underpass", which brings the Faerie into the modern realm and carries with it some of the storytelling (about struggling to find something to believe in) that I mentioned before.
Without a doubt, this is an emotional album to listen to - at least, it was for me. The strongest reaction for me was saved for a song called "Ladybird Year", which struck right into the heart of feelings I had when I was growing up, with lyrics such as "and to think that I was pretty that year/ kind of a shame I never knew/ Because I wasn't as brave as I tried to seem". I've already started working on a cover version because of how strongly it expresses those feelings and I'd like to be able to say it that well!
The most spooky song on the album is "World's End". If you've seen movies about surviving apocalyptic events, then you'll have an idea what this is about. Here, "World's End" is the isolated village where the narrator fled just in time to avoid the collapse of society and destruction of the major population centres. With the theme of impending ecological and economic disaster in the other songs, the message is clear: "this could really happen". If the other songs are about, "We need to do something!" then this one is about, "What if we don't do anything?"
What of the other songs with the sustainability message? "Kitchen Heroes" is about the fact that behind every obvious hero there has to be a support crew - the people who look after "The Hearth and the Hive". And without these people, of course, there would be no people at all. "Jam Tomorrow" states most directly the problems with the way economics are run at present, and the unsustainable nature of modern capitalism. "Vitruvian Man" returns to the theme of the skills and talents that can make life sustainable; this time suggesting that when certain resources (*ahem* petroleum *ahem*) have run out, we'll be back to a Mediaeval way of life and Leonardo Da Vinci will once again be the height of technological advancement (I'm not convinced of that personally - I think a bit more than that would survive - but it makes a great song!) "Wolf at Your Door" directly precedes "World's End" on the album, and probably also is what just precedes it in a storyline as well: it's the middle-class businessman wondering why suddenly things aren't working the way they should in his cocooned world - he complains about the television cutting off, and the paperboy not coming, and wondering why "someone" doesn't "do something" to fix it all.
If my dear readers haven't yet figured it out, I love this album and think everyone should buy it (that link at the top of the review - go on, everyone!) The environmental message, while perhaps overstated at times (but of course, artistic licence applies!), is an important one and clearly stated in ways that make the arguments for change much more powerful - some of these could be anthems for the environmentalist/anti-capitalism causes. The other songs are equally powerful in different ways (I've already mentioned how one in particular affects me!)
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Petition for review of sex education in Britain
Following yesterday's post about the results of a survey about Londoners' attitudes to rape, in which I mentioned I had written to my MP and promised to set up a petition for the Prime Minister on the Downing Street website, the petition has now been approved and so is up and ready to receive signatures:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to undertake an urgent review of sex education in Britain in the light of recent survey results about attitudes to rape.
Please please please publicise this as widely as possible, especially if you get a lot of British readers on your blog etc. This issue strikes me as very important, and if we get enough signatures at the very least we will get an official reply from the PM's Office.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to undertake an urgent review of sex education in Britain in the light of recent survey results about attitudes to rape.
Please please please publicise this as widely as possible, especially if you get a lot of British readers on your blog etc. This issue strikes me as very important, and if we get enough signatures at the very least we will get an official reply from the PM's Office.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Attitudes on rape still depressing: survey of London residents reveals
This came up yesterday but I was too tired to get into it properly then, I'll have a go at it today instead.
A survey (link is the .pdf file of the report summary) commissioned by The Havens (London's three rape crisis centres) revealed that 56% of Londoners believe that the victim is at least partially responsible for being raped. 18% believe that "most claims of rape are probably not true" (27% of men believed this, 14% of women did). This works out, in a jury of 12, to a probability that in 37% of cases that 3 or more jurors will believe that statement; since 10 jurors in agreement are required for a majority verdict to be accepted, that's 37% of rape cases where a guilty verdict is likely to be impossible. This rises to 99% when considering the statement of "at least partially responsible"; and 74% probability that a jury will contain at least 6 people who believe "at least partially responsible".
Is it any wonder that it's so hard to get a conviction in a rape trial?
The survey revealed that 79% of people would report being raped to the police; 18% said "maybe" or didn't know. 2% said definitely no.
The report also allowed open responses that revealed that the low chances of a conviction were a strong factor in many of these answers.
What is going wrong that these kinds of result can still be found in any part of this country? Well, my personal opinion is that it comes down to failing sex education. When I wrote up "The Sex Education Show vs Pornography" last year, I commented on how that show focussed on physical aspects of sex and ignored how to negotiate sex - I was particularly concerned that physical signs of arousal were in that show presented as meaning a person wants sex (something that is clearly untrue). So it seems to me that a change in approach to sex education needs to be made, one that will tackle head-on these issues and explain properly what rape is and how to prevent it (i.e. DON'T RAPE PEOPLE, GUYS!) [NB "guys" used as a neuter term, not gender-specific; but recognising that the vast majority of sexual assault is committed by men]. In fact, I'm writing to my MP today about the matter, and considering setting up a petition on the 10 Downing Street petitions website to call for an "urgent reassessment of sex education" in the light of these survey results.
A survey (link is the .pdf file of the report summary) commissioned by The Havens (London's three rape crisis centres) revealed that 56% of Londoners believe that the victim is at least partially responsible for being raped. 18% believe that "most claims of rape are probably not true" (27% of men believed this, 14% of women did). This works out, in a jury of 12, to a probability that in 37% of cases that 3 or more jurors will believe that statement; since 10 jurors in agreement are required for a majority verdict to be accepted, that's 37% of rape cases where a guilty verdict is likely to be impossible. This rises to 99% when considering the statement of "at least partially responsible"; and 74% probability that a jury will contain at least 6 people who believe "at least partially responsible".
Is it any wonder that it's so hard to get a conviction in a rape trial?
The survey revealed that 79% of people would report being raped to the police; 18% said "maybe" or didn't know. 2% said definitely no.
This begs the question; why? What is it that prevents people from letting the police know?
The main reasons are:
- I would be too embarrassed / ashamed of what had happened (55%)
- I would just want to forget it ever happened (41%)
- I wouldn’t want to go to court (38%)
- I would be afraid of repercussions from the assailant (31%)
- I would be afraid that my family would find out (25%)
- Men are more likely than women to be too embarrassed (62% vs. 53%) and fear repercussions from the assaulter (34% vs. 29%)
- The 18 to 24 year olds are most likely to choose all reasons for not wanting to approach the police
The report also allowed open responses that revealed that the low chances of a conviction were a strong factor in many of these answers.
What is going wrong that these kinds of result can still be found in any part of this country? Well, my personal opinion is that it comes down to failing sex education. When I wrote up "The Sex Education Show vs Pornography" last year, I commented on how that show focussed on physical aspects of sex and ignored how to negotiate sex - I was particularly concerned that physical signs of arousal were in that show presented as meaning a person wants sex (something that is clearly untrue). So it seems to me that a change in approach to sex education needs to be made, one that will tackle head-on these issues and explain properly what rape is and how to prevent it (i.e. DON'T RAPE PEOPLE, GUYS!) [NB "guys" used as a neuter term, not gender-specific; but recognising that the vast majority of sexual assault is committed by men]. In fact, I'm writing to my MP today about the matter, and considering setting up a petition on the 10 Downing Street petitions website to call for an "urgent reassessment of sex education" in the light of these survey results.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Dancing on Wheels 1st episode
It seems I got the format slightly wrong in my last post: the set-up is this:
Britain has until now never entered into the European Wheelchair Ballroom Dancing Championship. The objective of the series is to find a couple to represent Britain in the next competition.
The wheelchair dancers are all novices to dancing, but have been wheelchair users for some time (the shortest has been for 18 months after becoming paralysed). The temporarily-able-bodied dancers are all celebrities who either appeared on Strictly Come Dancing or else have dancing training due to their showbiz background.
Brian Fortuna has been an expert teacher of wheelchair ballroom dancing for 8 years and it seems as though this show is a serious project of his. Throughout the show his involvement in making it work and evangelising the power, beauty and athleticism of wheelchair dancing was palpable.
He made a clear statement of intent early on in the programme, while talking to the six wheelchair users who were selected to take part: "I don't want this to be about pity ... I want the audience to be like, 'Wow, I never even knew that was possible!'"
The wheelchair users were then introduced to their celeb partners, as follows:
James (a professional carer) was partnered with TV presenter Caroline Flack
Simone (a recent graduate) was partnered with Hollyoaks actor Kevin Sacre
Harry (described as recently married) was partnered with singer Michelle Gayle
Diana (described as mother of one) was partnered with swimmer Mark Foster
Carolyne (a bar worker) was partnered with Rugby League star Martin Offiah
Paul (a mechanical design engineer) was partnered with singer Heather Small
(For those who are interested, these broke down on race as 1 Black wheelchair user and 3 Black celebs; there were no Asian dancers)
There was footage of Brian Fortuna demonstrating how to use the athletics wheelchairs that are used for dancing, and of some of the celebrities trying out the chairs as well, to get a better idea of what forces are involved in controlling them.
Now, I'm not a wheelchair user myself, and not disabled, so my perceptions may not be fair. However, what I thought I saw during the course of this episode was a very positive representation of disabled folks with a genuine sense that the focus was on the person, not the disability: personalities, relationships and interactions were the important parts of how the show was put together as the cameras followed the first four weeks of training leading up to the first competition.
One thing that absolutely impressed me was how well Fortuna works as a teacher and as a coach. He definitely seemed to know how to get the best from his students, even when they were being awkward (as of course, a couple of them were).
Eventually, it came to the actual competition. I feel as though we weren't always given the best angle to watch the dancing itself, because as the culmination of the introductory training period it's understandable that the programme makers wanted to focus on the human story as much as on the technical aspects of the dancing. Nevertheless, what were were shown was absolutely impressive and I think Fortuna's mission statement is going to be achieved very easily during this series.
The judges were husband-and-wife professional dancers from Strictly Come Dancing, James and Ola Jordan, along with paralympics athlete and TV presenter Ade Adepitan. It might have been nice if the BBC had found a way to get at least one professional wheelchair dancer into the judges line-up but equally you can see why they might have found it hard to find an English-speaking pro to take the job (since Britain doesn't have anyone entering the European competition...!) So finding someone to comment on the technical chair work as well as people to comment on the dance aspects of the performances was probably the best they could manage. In fact, at one point Adepitan commented on the lack of experience that his fellow judges had with assessing the technical aspects of wheelchair dance, talking how they missed crucial elements of the chair control in one routine.
I was disappointed when the judges eliminated Carolyne and Martin, because I thought they did really well and they were one of the more enjoyable couples to watch in the build-up footage as well.
I absolutely loved Diana and Mark's tango, they were awesome by any measure I thought. Some of the others you might say "awesome considering it's only their first go" but their performance was awesome full-stop.
Britain has until now never entered into the European Wheelchair Ballroom Dancing Championship. The objective of the series is to find a couple to represent Britain in the next competition.
The wheelchair dancers are all novices to dancing, but have been wheelchair users for some time (the shortest has been for 18 months after becoming paralysed). The temporarily-able-bodied dancers are all celebrities who either appeared on Strictly Come Dancing or else have dancing training due to their showbiz background.
Brian Fortuna has been an expert teacher of wheelchair ballroom dancing for 8 years and it seems as though this show is a serious project of his. Throughout the show his involvement in making it work and evangelising the power, beauty and athleticism of wheelchair dancing was palpable.
He made a clear statement of intent early on in the programme, while talking to the six wheelchair users who were selected to take part: "I don't want this to be about pity ... I want the audience to be like, 'Wow, I never even knew that was possible!'"
The wheelchair users were then introduced to their celeb partners, as follows:
James (a professional carer) was partnered with TV presenter Caroline Flack
Simone (a recent graduate) was partnered with Hollyoaks actor Kevin Sacre
Harry (described as recently married) was partnered with singer Michelle Gayle
Diana (described as mother of one) was partnered with swimmer Mark Foster
Carolyne (a bar worker) was partnered with Rugby League star Martin Offiah
Paul (a mechanical design engineer) was partnered with singer Heather Small
(For those who are interested, these broke down on race as 1 Black wheelchair user and 3 Black celebs; there were no Asian dancers)
There was footage of Brian Fortuna demonstrating how to use the athletics wheelchairs that are used for dancing, and of some of the celebrities trying out the chairs as well, to get a better idea of what forces are involved in controlling them.
Now, I'm not a wheelchair user myself, and not disabled, so my perceptions may not be fair. However, what I thought I saw during the course of this episode was a very positive representation of disabled folks with a genuine sense that the focus was on the person, not the disability: personalities, relationships and interactions were the important parts of how the show was put together as the cameras followed the first four weeks of training leading up to the first competition.
One thing that absolutely impressed me was how well Fortuna works as a teacher and as a coach. He definitely seemed to know how to get the best from his students, even when they were being awkward (as of course, a couple of them were).
Eventually, it came to the actual competition. I feel as though we weren't always given the best angle to watch the dancing itself, because as the culmination of the introductory training period it's understandable that the programme makers wanted to focus on the human story as much as on the technical aspects of the dancing. Nevertheless, what were were shown was absolutely impressive and I think Fortuna's mission statement is going to be achieved very easily during this series.
The judges were husband-and-wife professional dancers from Strictly Come Dancing, James and Ola Jordan, along with paralympics athlete and TV presenter Ade Adepitan. It might have been nice if the BBC had found a way to get at least one professional wheelchair dancer into the judges line-up but equally you can see why they might have found it hard to find an English-speaking pro to take the job (since Britain doesn't have anyone entering the European competition...!) So finding someone to comment on the technical chair work as well as people to comment on the dance aspects of the performances was probably the best they could manage. In fact, at one point Adepitan commented on the lack of experience that his fellow judges had with assessing the technical aspects of wheelchair dance, talking how they missed crucial elements of the chair control in one routine.
I was disappointed when the judges eliminated Carolyne and Martin, because I thought they did really well and they were one of the more enjoyable couples to watch in the build-up footage as well.
I absolutely loved Diana and Mark's tango, they were awesome by any measure I thought. Some of the others you might say "awesome considering it's only their first go" but their performance was awesome full-stop.
Dancing on Wheels tonight at 9pm
Back in December, I mentioned that a programme called "Dancing on Wheels" was going to start in February, which is Strictly Come Dancing in wheelchairs; the intention of the show is to present a positive image of PwD.
The first episode will appear on BBC3 at 9pm tonight (Thursday 11th Feb), and will almost certainly be available on BBC iPlayer an hour after that.
The first episode will appear on BBC3 at 9pm tonight (Thursday 11th Feb), and will almost certainly be available on BBC iPlayer an hour after that.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Van Der Filk
For those not "in the know", into which category I suspect many of my regular readers will fall, the Van Der Filk convention was the 22nd (vingt-deux, geddit!!??) UK Filk Convention in which dozens of musicians with interests in the SF/Fantasy/technology/cats range gathered at some hotel where we're welcome to sing at each other and generally have a good time.
The cost to me was roughly 1/12th of yearly income from jobseeker's allowance, so I was only really able to do this because I had a stroke of good financial fortune in the summer and was able to save some money to one side in order to pay for the weekend away.
Going on any kind of holiday is a big thing for me, involving a huge amount of careful planning that will inevitably go wrong somewhere. This event, being a musical one, involved even more than usual, since I had to work out how many instruments and of what kind, I could reliably transport via public transport from point A to point B, as well as working out what other things I wanted with me. An added complication to these calculations was the fact that my foot was still painful and it wasn't clear whether I would need a walking stick to get from A to B either.
I also had my newly-put together CD of filk, tunes and a couple of other things, that I hoped to sell (this did not work out as well as I had hoped - I suspect I could do better if I had the chance over again, but anyway). The CD is still available if anyone reading this wants it - including P&P I will be asking £6 in the UK and US$15 for USA - not sure yet what the costs would be to Europe but I'm sure some satisfactory arrangements can be made if I'm contacted.
I was rather impressed when I got to the hotel and found that the only thing I had forgotten to bring in the end was my blank A4 writing paper for writing songs, and a guitar capo.
After the adventure of getting through London and out the other side okay, I arrived at the hotel around 3pm on Friday, which was more or less what I had planned when I set out. I wasn't quite sure what to do - plans don't normally run that smoothly!
After dumping luggage in my room, I joined the other early-ish arrivals in the lounge for conversation until food and the opening ceremony.
All the time, my main concern was that I wasn't sure if I was ready for my set or not. It was at this point, and no sooner, that I realised that I had forgotten my capo, and that four out of nine songs I ended up performing would need a capo. Fortunately, it being a gathering of folk-y style musicians, there were a number of capos available to be borrowed!
Before it was my turn, though, there was Heather Borean's set. Details are hazy in my memory because a lot happened in between then and now, but I definitely liked it.
Details of my set are also hazy, but as near as I can figure it ran something like this:
Life Of A Sun (song by me)
Bonny Boys of Bedlam (traditional song)
Roads (cover of song by Artisan)
Who Will Blow The Candle Out? (cover of song performed by Coope, Boyes & Simpson)
Different Kinds Of Sun (song by me, ttto Home, Lads, Home)
Faith In You (cover of song by Show of Hands)
The Bottom Line (cover of song by Lynn Watts)
Do They Still Sing Songs of the Great Tribble Hunt? (song by me)
Here Before We Came (song by me)
I noticed some people apologised for putting in several covers in their sets. I didn't, because I like singing these songs, think I do them well, and so why wouldn't I want to entertain others with them?
I was painfully aware of all the mistakes I made in the various songs (if I do Life of a Sun live again, I'm changing the backing track to give me clearer cues - I was getting it spot on when practising at home, but of course adrenaline and excitement threw my timing right off on the night).
After hobbling off the stage again, I settled down to rest my painful leg and enjoy the remainder of the evening.
After enjoying Nat's set and Mike's set of many guitars, it was time for a circle. I don't know if it's strictly speaking filking to take one song and put it in a different style, but it is fun - I tried out my guitar-picking ballad style versions of New Found Glory's "My Friends Over You" and Alice Cooper's "Poison" (a full arrangement of which I will post to youtube as soon as I work out how I want to do the video - the NFG song is already available - link includes gratuitous male semi-nudity).
Saturday was big, although the efforts of the day before had without doubt strained my foot so walking was difficult again. As much as possible I just stayed put and listened to the many wonderful performers who took the stage.
By dinner time, my foot was feeling better and I was ready for a walk to find some cheaper food than that available at the hotel, and tagged along with a group of others with the same idea. This was going to hurt later, of course, but I thought it would be worth it. Unfortunately, the destination turned out to have a 45min waiting time before we could be seated, which would mean missing the first couple of acts of the evening. Since these were sets by the UK and US Guests of Honour, this was not acceptable - we trudged back to the hotel and made the best we could of what they had there.
More resting of the foot, and more fabulous music and singing to hear while doing so, especially the GoH concerts. Especially amusing was when Vixy said the tech crew had a suck knob. For those unaware (as Vixy was), "knob" in English slang is "penis"... Vixy and Tony were amazingly good, and I would have to say unfairly so considering they were suffering from colds at the time!
Two stand-out pieces of improvisation from the Saturday night circle: without a doubt the duelling pipes (recorder and tin whistle) was an absolute highlight of the weekend as Christo's ability to produce overblow effect on the recorder led to a contest between him and Tim (it was even nominated for "best performance at con"!). But also, the instafilk of "Wild Rover" to tell the story of the Spirit Mars rover ("And it's no, nay, never (beepbeepbeepbeepbeep) no nay never no more/ will I be a Mars rover - no never, no more") initiated by Bill Sutton with two whole verses, and then developed further by other members of the circle.
Sunday came and I joined the ecumenifilk for songs of spiritual or religious uplifting. I attempted to sing "Lay Me Low", but may not have hit all the right notes. I think everyone there sang/led at least one song and much spiritual uplifting was had.
The "One-shot" concerts (performers doing a single song or routine each) included two spectacular performances: Phil and Marilisa's performance of "Afraid of the Shark" (for my non-filker friends, this was ostensibly the story of "Jaws" told almost entirely through puns based on well-known filk songs) and the Crooklets singing "Where's Your Schoolbag?" to the tune of Hallelujah. The latter won the "best performance" award, and deservedly so. And Phil won "best silly song" for "Afraid of the Shark". That shows you how good the one-shots were!
There was a filk version of the panel show genre - based on "I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue", "Whose Line is it Anyway", "Have I got News for You?" etc. Typically silly, and absolutely NO hint of foul play from EITHER team...!
Apart from the near-miss of Talis accidentally making off with my banjo (she had mistaken it for one of her guitars, which shows how tired and in need of escape she was!) everything was fine.
After a couple of turns around the eventually rather large circle that formed in the spare programming room after the official closing ceremony, I went and joined Bill, Mike and Lawrence to watch the Superbowl. Bill's preference for the Colts made the group allegiance mandatory, which may explain why the Saints were able to win it (any team I support automatically fails, it's been shown in scientific experiment!) - however, I missed that bit. I was sadly feeling the consequences of a lack of sleep and decided discretion was the better part of valour - I arrived in bed just in time!
Monday morning involved hugging people goodbye, noodling on my banjo in a corner out the way, and then heading homewards. My usual route through London involves the Northern Line from King's Cross to London Bridge. After about 15 minutes on the tube platform, it was announced that services were no longer running due to some kind of major electrical fault further down the line. Making my way instead to Charing Cross, I was able to get the same train as I would have done anyway, but it involved a lot more legwork changing tube trains.
Was it worth the money and effort? Of course! I had a terrific time, and if people now buy my cd it might even not have cost me quite as much and that would make it more likely to be possible to attend something next year (hint, hint!) I have a handy paypal button on the right-hand column there, if you donate the appropriate amount, and let me know it's for a cd and where you want me to send it, all will be good.
The cost to me was roughly 1/12th of yearly income from jobseeker's allowance, so I was only really able to do this because I had a stroke of good financial fortune in the summer and was able to save some money to one side in order to pay for the weekend away.
Going on any kind of holiday is a big thing for me, involving a huge amount of careful planning that will inevitably go wrong somewhere. This event, being a musical one, involved even more than usual, since I had to work out how many instruments and of what kind, I could reliably transport via public transport from point A to point B, as well as working out what other things I wanted with me. An added complication to these calculations was the fact that my foot was still painful and it wasn't clear whether I would need a walking stick to get from A to B either.
I also had my newly-put together CD of filk, tunes and a couple of other things, that I hoped to sell (this did not work out as well as I had hoped - I suspect I could do better if I had the chance over again, but anyway). The CD is still available if anyone reading this wants it - including P&P I will be asking £6 in the UK and US$15 for USA - not sure yet what the costs would be to Europe but I'm sure some satisfactory arrangements can be made if I'm contacted.
I was rather impressed when I got to the hotel and found that the only thing I had forgotten to bring in the end was my blank A4 writing paper for writing songs, and a guitar capo.
After the adventure of getting through London and out the other side okay, I arrived at the hotel around 3pm on Friday, which was more or less what I had planned when I set out. I wasn't quite sure what to do - plans don't normally run that smoothly!
After dumping luggage in my room, I joined the other early-ish arrivals in the lounge for conversation until food and the opening ceremony.
All the time, my main concern was that I wasn't sure if I was ready for my set or not. It was at this point, and no sooner, that I realised that I had forgotten my capo, and that four out of nine songs I ended up performing would need a capo. Fortunately, it being a gathering of folk-y style musicians, there were a number of capos available to be borrowed!
Before it was my turn, though, there was Heather Borean's set. Details are hazy in my memory because a lot happened in between then and now, but I definitely liked it.
Details of my set are also hazy, but as near as I can figure it ran something like this:
Life Of A Sun (song by me)
Bonny Boys of Bedlam (traditional song)
Roads (cover of song by Artisan)
Who Will Blow The Candle Out? (cover of song performed by Coope, Boyes & Simpson)
Different Kinds Of Sun (song by me, ttto Home, Lads, Home)
Faith In You (cover of song by Show of Hands)
The Bottom Line (cover of song by Lynn Watts)
Do They Still Sing Songs of the Great Tribble Hunt? (song by me)
Here Before We Came (song by me)
I noticed some people apologised for putting in several covers in their sets. I didn't, because I like singing these songs, think I do them well, and so why wouldn't I want to entertain others with them?
I was painfully aware of all the mistakes I made in the various songs (if I do Life of a Sun live again, I'm changing the backing track to give me clearer cues - I was getting it spot on when practising at home, but of course adrenaline and excitement threw my timing right off on the night).
After hobbling off the stage again, I settled down to rest my painful leg and enjoy the remainder of the evening.
After enjoying Nat's set and Mike's set of many guitars, it was time for a circle. I don't know if it's strictly speaking filking to take one song and put it in a different style, but it is fun - I tried out my guitar-picking ballad style versions of New Found Glory's "My Friends Over You" and Alice Cooper's "Poison" (a full arrangement of which I will post to youtube as soon as I work out how I want to do the video - the NFG song is already available - link includes gratuitous male semi-nudity).
Saturday was big, although the efforts of the day before had without doubt strained my foot so walking was difficult again. As much as possible I just stayed put and listened to the many wonderful performers who took the stage.
By dinner time, my foot was feeling better and I was ready for a walk to find some cheaper food than that available at the hotel, and tagged along with a group of others with the same idea. This was going to hurt later, of course, but I thought it would be worth it. Unfortunately, the destination turned out to have a 45min waiting time before we could be seated, which would mean missing the first couple of acts of the evening. Since these were sets by the UK and US Guests of Honour, this was not acceptable - we trudged back to the hotel and made the best we could of what they had there.
More resting of the foot, and more fabulous music and singing to hear while doing so, especially the GoH concerts. Especially amusing was when Vixy said the tech crew had a suck knob. For those unaware (as Vixy was), "knob" in English slang is "penis"... Vixy and Tony were amazingly good, and I would have to say unfairly so considering they were suffering from colds at the time!
Two stand-out pieces of improvisation from the Saturday night circle: without a doubt the duelling pipes (recorder and tin whistle) was an absolute highlight of the weekend as Christo's ability to produce overblow effect on the recorder led to a contest between him and Tim (it was even nominated for "best performance at con"!). But also, the instafilk of "Wild Rover" to tell the story of the Spirit Mars rover ("And it's no, nay, never (beepbeepbeepbeepbeep) no nay never no more/ will I be a Mars rover - no never, no more") initiated by Bill Sutton with two whole verses, and then developed further by other members of the circle.
Sunday came and I joined the ecumenifilk for songs of spiritual or religious uplifting. I attempted to sing "Lay Me Low", but may not have hit all the right notes. I think everyone there sang/led at least one song and much spiritual uplifting was had.
The "One-shot" concerts (performers doing a single song or routine each) included two spectacular performances: Phil and Marilisa's performance of "Afraid of the Shark" (for my non-filker friends, this was ostensibly the story of "Jaws" told almost entirely through puns based on well-known filk songs) and the Crooklets singing "Where's Your Schoolbag?" to the tune of Hallelujah. The latter won the "best performance" award, and deservedly so. And Phil won "best silly song" for "Afraid of the Shark". That shows you how good the one-shots were!
There was a filk version of the panel show genre - based on "I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue", "Whose Line is it Anyway", "Have I got News for You?" etc. Typically silly, and absolutely NO hint of foul play from EITHER team...!
Apart from the near-miss of Talis accidentally making off with my banjo (she had mistaken it for one of her guitars, which shows how tired and in need of escape she was!) everything was fine.
After a couple of turns around the eventually rather large circle that formed in the spare programming room after the official closing ceremony, I went and joined Bill, Mike and Lawrence to watch the Superbowl. Bill's preference for the Colts made the group allegiance mandatory, which may explain why the Saints were able to win it (any team I support automatically fails, it's been shown in scientific experiment!) - however, I missed that bit. I was sadly feeling the consequences of a lack of sleep and decided discretion was the better part of valour - I arrived in bed just in time!
Monday morning involved hugging people goodbye, noodling on my banjo in a corner out the way, and then heading homewards. My usual route through London involves the Northern Line from King's Cross to London Bridge. After about 15 minutes on the tube platform, it was announced that services were no longer running due to some kind of major electrical fault further down the line. Making my way instead to Charing Cross, I was able to get the same train as I would have done anyway, but it involved a lot more legwork changing tube trains.
Was it worth the money and effort? Of course! I had a terrific time, and if people now buy my cd it might even not have cost me quite as much and that would make it more likely to be possible to attend something next year (hint, hint!) I have a handy paypal button on the right-hand column there, if you donate the appropriate amount, and let me know it's for a cd and where you want me to send it, all will be good.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Pope reveals he doesn't understand religious freedom
On the Guardian website last evening I saw a news story that Pope Benedict XVI thinks that anti-discrimination laws are restricting Catholics' religious freedom.
His remarks were a little cryptic about the specific legislation, but the Guardian article speculated thus:
The first point is about providing a service (in this specific case, adoption agencies). Here's my take: When you provide a service to members of the public, you do not get to discriminate on religious grounds: I couldn't turn around and say I wanted not to serve someone because they were a Catholic, so why should Catholics get to say they don't want to serve gay folks? The reason that these Catholic adoption agencies don't want to serve gay folks is because gay folks choose not to live by the Catholics' religious code; the choice of gay folks not to live that way does not affect Catholics' freedom of belief or, indeed, of action. The provision of this service, while obviously a controversial point because it involves children (and rightly or wrongly, British society has developed a strong aversion to any hint of upset surrounding children), is not something on which I can see a lot of religious dogma hanging; gay couples say "we want to raise a child in a loving environment", and out there in the world there are children in need of loving environments in which to grow - an adoption agency is just a service to match the people who want to care for a child with a child who needs their care. As the meerkat says, "Simples!"
I suppose a Catholic might turn around and say, "But my religion tells me a child needs a mother and a father, not two of one and none of the other!" But again, while a Catholic adoption agency would I am sure be free to express this opinion to any potential adopters (including gay couples), to deny the service on those grounds would be to force their views on others.
Therefore, there is absolutely no restriction of religious belief or worship involved here.
One last thought regarding the adoption issue: English and Welsh bishops "told [the Pope] sexual orientation legislation that came into effect on 1 January 2009 had forced the closure of half the Roman Catholic adoption agencies because the law making it illegal to discriminate against gay applicants went against their beliefs."
This is probably the element that makes me angriest. It makes me angry as a Christian, and it makes me angry as a humanist, because what this says is that these Catholic adoption agencies put their homophobic beliefs above the welfare of the children whom those agencies were helping to find loving homes. That's neither a Christian thing to do, nor is it an ethical thing to do. Christ preached love for the sinner, preached "I was naked and you clothed me, hungry and you fed me" etc; if these adoption agencies were performing the service as a religious calling, then that calling must surely have been to help clothe and feed and so on the children who were being found homes, and it doesn't matter what homes as long as they had the love and resources to care for them. And humanist ethics as well say, "put the needy folks first for crying out loud!" (and that's the children in this case).
The other point suggested is about hiring workers. Specifically, about excluding those whose "lifestyles" conflict with Roman Catholic teaching. At which point I have to ask, how is it even relevant? If you have a job that needs doing, here's what you need:
A person who does the job efficiently, accurately, to a high standard, and without preference, favour or bias. In other words, someone who will do the job professionally and well.
What they do with themselves outside of working hours (so long as it's not illegal or directly defamatory to the employer) is entirely their own business and not a proper part of the decision process for hiring someone. If you're hiring someone to perform religious (worship) duties, of course, then I think you have a right to expect them to share your faith. But for jobs like admin, repairs, etc - where there's no direct religious involvement - it's a nonsense to say that religious freedom is at stake. An applicant for the job should be judged on their ability to do the job properly and professionally. Nothing else.
My final remarks on the Pope's comments relate to this excerpt:
"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."
Now, a) that's not my understanding of Christian theology of human rights (but maybe I am unfamiliar with specifically Roman Catholic teachings on that matter) and b) it most certainly isn't the basis of secular human rights.
On point a) it is that we are endowed with a spirit that renders us created "in the image of God" - and that goes for all humans, "natural law" or not; what I like so much about Quakerism is the centrality of the concept of "that of God in (all of) us". But it's a key concept in a lot of Christian ethical philosophy.
On point b) just the very fact that a secular human rights exists is proof that this "natural law" gibberish is total bunkum.
His remarks were a little cryptic about the specific legislation, but the Guardian article speculated thus:
It is thought his comments relate to laws that came in last year preventing adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples and also Harriet Harman's equality bill, currently going through parliament.
...
It is also thought the pope was referring to the equality bill, which narrows the special exemption enjoyed by churches allowing them to exclude people whose lifestyles do not fit in with the religious ethos of an organisation when hiring staff.
The first point is about providing a service (in this specific case, adoption agencies). Here's my take: When you provide a service to members of the public, you do not get to discriminate on religious grounds: I couldn't turn around and say I wanted not to serve someone because they were a Catholic, so why should Catholics get to say they don't want to serve gay folks? The reason that these Catholic adoption agencies don't want to serve gay folks is because gay folks choose not to live by the Catholics' religious code; the choice of gay folks not to live that way does not affect Catholics' freedom of belief or, indeed, of action. The provision of this service, while obviously a controversial point because it involves children (and rightly or wrongly, British society has developed a strong aversion to any hint of upset surrounding children), is not something on which I can see a lot of religious dogma hanging; gay couples say "we want to raise a child in a loving environment", and out there in the world there are children in need of loving environments in which to grow - an adoption agency is just a service to match the people who want to care for a child with a child who needs their care. As the meerkat says, "Simples!"
I suppose a Catholic might turn around and say, "But my religion tells me a child needs a mother and a father, not two of one and none of the other!" But again, while a Catholic adoption agency would I am sure be free to express this opinion to any potential adopters (including gay couples), to deny the service on those grounds would be to force their views on others.
Therefore, there is absolutely no restriction of religious belief or worship involved here.
One last thought regarding the adoption issue: English and Welsh bishops "told [the Pope] sexual orientation legislation that came into effect on 1 January 2009 had forced the closure of half the Roman Catholic adoption agencies because the law making it illegal to discriminate against gay applicants went against their beliefs."
This is probably the element that makes me angriest. It makes me angry as a Christian, and it makes me angry as a humanist, because what this says is that these Catholic adoption agencies put their homophobic beliefs above the welfare of the children whom those agencies were helping to find loving homes. That's neither a Christian thing to do, nor is it an ethical thing to do. Christ preached love for the sinner, preached "I was naked and you clothed me, hungry and you fed me" etc; if these adoption agencies were performing the service as a religious calling, then that calling must surely have been to help clothe and feed and so on the children who were being found homes, and it doesn't matter what homes as long as they had the love and resources to care for them. And humanist ethics as well say, "put the needy folks first for crying out loud!" (and that's the children in this case).
The other point suggested is about hiring workers. Specifically, about excluding those whose "lifestyles" conflict with Roman Catholic teaching. At which point I have to ask, how is it even relevant? If you have a job that needs doing, here's what you need:
A person who does the job efficiently, accurately, to a high standard, and without preference, favour or bias. In other words, someone who will do the job professionally and well.
What they do with themselves outside of working hours (so long as it's not illegal or directly defamatory to the employer) is entirely their own business and not a proper part of the decision process for hiring someone. If you're hiring someone to perform religious (worship) duties, of course, then I think you have a right to expect them to share your faith. But for jobs like admin, repairs, etc - where there's no direct religious involvement - it's a nonsense to say that religious freedom is at stake. An applicant for the job should be judged on their ability to do the job properly and professionally. Nothing else.
My final remarks on the Pope's comments relate to this excerpt:
"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."
Now, a) that's not my understanding of Christian theology of human rights (but maybe I am unfamiliar with specifically Roman Catholic teachings on that matter) and b) it most certainly isn't the basis of secular human rights.
On point a) it is that we are endowed with a spirit that renders us created "in the image of God" - and that goes for all humans, "natural law" or not; what I like so much about Quakerism is the centrality of the concept of "that of God in (all of) us". But it's a key concept in a lot of Christian ethical philosophy.
On point b) just the very fact that a secular human rights exists is proof that this "natural law" gibberish is total bunkum.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Jail cell meme (via Ren)
If you & I woke up in jail together....USING FOUR WORDS....what would you say to me? Copy and paste this in your status and see what funny things your friends say...(And if you make a comment, you gotta put this in your status. Fair is fair.)
Now, this not being LJ I don't have a status but the game looks fun and hopefully people who visit here regularly will join in and spread it across Blogdonia anyway - if you comment, you're tagged to post it at your place, 'kay?
Now, let's hear it!
Colour Quiz
Via Trinity:
I can't remember what words I chose in the end (although I do recall ticking "dark"!) so no point asking me. I think it's quite an accurate picture of my personality (but, given that it's based on self-chosen descriptors, I would expect everyone who tried it to say that; whether people who know them agree or not is another matter!)
#20B2AA |
Your dominant hues are green and blue. You're smart and you know it, and want to use your power to help people and relate to others. Even though you tend to battle with yourself, you solve other people's conflicts well. Your saturation level is higher than average - You know what you want, but sometimes know not to tell everyone. You value accomplishments and know you can get the job done, so don't be afraid to run out and make things happen. Your outlook on life is brighter than most people's. You like the idea of influencing things for the better and find hope in situations where others might give up. You're not exactly a bouncy sunshine but things in your world generally look up. |
I can't remember what words I chose in the end (although I do recall ticking "dark"!) so no point asking me. I think it's quite an accurate picture of my personality (but, given that it's based on self-chosen descriptors, I would expect everyone who tried it to say that; whether people who know them agree or not is another matter!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)