Cloud Five

Yesterday's post about bands and gigs got me sent down the rabbit hole of my own musical past. Digging through the old songs and SoundCloud accounts.

Finding the various passwords and email addresses for each one was a pain in the a*se. I managed to get back into them all in the end though. The views for each were few and unimpressive. Thoroughly lost deep in the internet jungle.

1) The earliest going back was The Roseberries account.

https://soundcloud.com/the-roseberries

The earliest tracks were uploaded there eleven years ago, though they actually date from even earlier ..circa 2006 if I remember rightly. Even the two more recently uploaded ones originally date from 2013-ish.

2) Next we have Freckled Monkey.

https://soundcloud.com/freckled-monkey

You may notice that the URL of this blog is freckledmonkey. It was clearly a moniker I was going under at some point, before this blog morphed into its current form. The name was largely incidental really, and this particular SoundCloud account was mainly a place to upload some of the more experimental electronic music I was making at the time. Binaural beats an all.

3) The Tudahs.

https://soundcloud.com/the-tudahs

This band is more recent, though it ended around seven years ago. So like everything else it's firmly in the rear view mirror.

4) p9nd_apple.

https://soundcloud.com/user-292048615-200398677

This one has some overlap with the Freckled Monkey endeavour. More electronic. All instrumentals. I set up a parallel YouTube channel for this one - billing the music as 'royalty free'. Thinking that perhaps they could serve a use to people needing backing music. I pretty much consider everything on this list royalty free really. It's beyond money ( - though obviously there was once a time when I dreamed of 'making it' 😁 ).

The name again was incidental, though I was thinking about the earth, the waters and the natural landscape. So there are connotations of that.

5) Solo Acoustic.

https://soundcloud.com/user-804123342

Finally, we have this account for what's mainly acoustic guitar music. Some of this is more recent, though even here most of it dates back a few years. Perhaps there will be more, perhaps not. Who knows?

Vanned on the Run

Two posts today. This second one follows on from the mention of ULEZ in that last post.

We often now hear musicians claiming Brexit has made it more difficult to travel around Europe doing gigs. I'm not sure to what extent this is true, but I don't doubt there could be some genuine issues and costs. Likewise I don't doubt it's all been somewhat exaggerated by people seeking to make an issue out of it.

What I find truly both comic and tragic though is that none of these musicians see the real restrictions on the horizon. Forget about doing gigs in Europe, it might soon be impossible to do gigs in the next town. Even aside from fears about Agenda 2030 and 15 minute cities, the ULEZ plans alone present a significant threat to music. Gone will be the days when a band of young lads could somehow fetch enough money together to get a cheap van, and hitch their amplifiers to venues up and down the country.

In many ways guitar music is on the rocks as it is. With digitisation and the internet making the physical effort of dragging amplifiers to practice rooms not quite as needed. As I mentioned in relation to AI a few posts ago (see how nicely I tie all these themes together), technology now means one man can do what it once took many. Arranging rehearsals and enlisting a bass player and drummer is very hard and expensive. Even if it's with friends the personal politics is tricky. It's much, much easier to open up some software and get down to making music on your laptop. Your opinion is king. You don't have to persuade other humans to play it your way, or adopt your ideas and vision.

Conversely however, it's much less fun doing things alone, and the thrill of live music - real and analogue in the physical world - holds huge appeal. Even here though, software is an easier and more portable option. Why lug a drum kit when you can just programme the beats?

Even if you're prepared to go to all that extra effort to get that realness, to get that human touch and interaction, what if you just can't afford it? If businesses and families are struggling to cover the cost of maintaining a vehicle what chance does a scruffy young band have?

This is just another one of those things that the people bringing in all this watermelon red tape will have never even considered.

Rule by Question Time Audience

I've covered this topic before: the citizens' assembly. 😡

Today we had an article in the FT about Rory Stewart, and his plans on how to fix politics. They basically read like a blueprint on how to destroy Britain. He wants parliament reduced to a 100 MPs, more powerful local mayors ..and citizens' assemblies.

I can't stress enough how much I hate the idea of citizens' assemblies. My dislike for them comes from the fact that they're simply undemocratic. My hate for them stems from the fact that the people pushing them clearly understand what they're doing.

And what they're doing is trying to create the illusion of public support, for whatever policies they themselves want to implement.

I call it "Rule by Question Time Audience"

(The British public, having their say)

For those outside the UK, Question Time is a political debate show, where the public get to question a panel of politicians and public figures. The audience is meant to be representative of the British public (with a local bias, as it moves to a different town or city each week). However, representative doesn't just mean random joe public turning up. The reality is the audience is somewhat curated, in order to be representative. That means making sure all the chosen minority groups are represented. Climate activists, LGBTQ+, religious minorities and so forth.

It likewise means certain groups will be excluded. For instance, today is the anniversary of 9/11, and it doesn't matter how many people have questions about the official line on that political event, that will not be raised as a topic.

There's also, of course, another natural bias that the BBC can't entirely help. That is, that most normal people aren't massively engaged in politics enough to want to go to such an event. So it's always likely that the audience will be made up of people that are heavily invested in politics, or a particular political cause. Hence why so many outright political activists often end up in the audience, usually under the guise that they're just a "concerned mum," or a fed up 'NHS worker,' or whatever.

It can be annoying watching Question Time when you understand all this. At the same time though, it is just a TV show, and the producers are at least trying to engage the public. Even if there were no biases at all on the part of the BBC, it would still be difficult to ensure the audience wasn't biased or hijacked by other groups with an axe to grind.

So I am actually sympathetic to the BBC, they are the state broadcaster after all.

However..

When it comes to the actual political process itself I have no tolerance for this type of public curation.

In democratic countries we have fair, 'one person, one vote' elections, where we elect our representatives. Who then go and make decisions on our behalf. If we think they're doing a bad job we vote them out. Again, most normal people don't want to be politicians. They have jobs and families and other things to be getting on with. They don't have the time to be sat in assemblies discussing every latest issue. If they want to be politicians they are free to stand in elections and become one.

With "Rule by Question Time Audience" though what we'll have is "random" people (that aren't actually random, as they'll be filtered to be "representative") making judgements on topics, and then the actual politicians will say, "Well, we must do this, as it's what the public want."

And any politician that doesn't go along with the Citizens' Assembly decision or advice will be decried by the media as "un-democratic," or as going against the wishes of "the public" for doing so.

It won't matter what the actual public think. It won't matter that the politician has been specifically invested with decision making power by that actual voting public. The narrative or fig leaf provided by the curated proxy for the public will be all consuming.

This is what the people want!

We got a bunch of random political activists and simpletons into a room. We bamboozled them with all the "fair and accurate information" they needed, and they have decided, "Yes, we do want these ULEZ schemes."

The people have spoken.

A-Ideas and the Golden Age of Fantasy

I'm trying to post on here more frequently, but I've been a little bit snarky on Twitter recently, so I'm wondering if it's a good idea. A little too much opinion, a little too little thought.

I've been thinking about AI today. I'm always quick to pour scepticism on notions that AI will ever be intelligent in the consciousness sense, however, as a tool, used by humans, I agree it has incredible potential. I'm now wondering what the actuality of this potential will be over the next few years.

My main thinking has been in regard film - both the realistic and the anime variety. If you have a good idea for a movie, realising that end vision normally requires a lot of money and the backing of a studio. (That is, the help of other people.) Will AI allow people to bypass this though?

We've seen how YouTube and the internet in general has allowed individuals to compete with the mainstream in the realms of newsprint and simpler film and audio content. Likewise in the production of music. Does AI now mean the same for grander film projects?

People tend to focus on this notion that AI will just auto-generate content going forward. That humans can just sit back and let the AI entertain us all. However, I'm much more interested in the idea that "humans with good ideas" will be liberated by AI. Ideas are king, and I don't think AI alone will produce anything that isn't just derivative of human work. If an individual human has a good idea though, AI may help that one human realise their vision. They can just bypass all the other humans they would normally need to enlist, and crack on and realise their masterpiece.

Much like how a drum machine helps a musician with a vision forgo the need to enlist a human drummer.

One person, with some software, will make the equivalent of Star Wars from their bedroom.

The Shrugging of Shoulders

I want to talk about the vandalism of ULEZ cameras today. There's a mini furore as former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has said he supports this vandalism. It's interesting to me as:

a) it's a moral conundrum

And b) it says quite a lot about where we are at the moment.

a)

It's a moral conundrum for obvious reasons. It wasn't too long ago that I was stating on this very blog that we don't just vandalise the things we don't like in a civilised society. This was in response to the pulling down of statues by BLM agitators. Now however, the boot is on the other foot. Now it's something I don't like being vandalised. I could make the case that the ULEZ cameras are much worse than the statues. After all, regular people are being forced to pay £12.50 a day just for the privilege of using cars they've bought, paid tax and insurance on, paid the petrol and repair costs for - on roads that they've paid for. That they need to use for work/school/business. Then on top of this, that this is just the beginning ..that it will inevitably lead to further costs and incursions. Perhaps eventually leading to the banning of cars altogether.

Whatever my pleading though, I can't escape the hypocrisy.

In my heart I'm very pleased these cameras are being destroyed. Yet, in my head, I can't avoid the simple fact that it is indeed lawless vandalism. I'm torn.

At what point does it become okay to go full Robin Hood? Is there a point?

For the time being I'm going to be a coward and just leave it at that. I can't really say if this vandalism gets a green light from me or not. I'm not sure what side of the fence to come down on.

b)

This leads me very nicely on to (b) though, and the "shrugging of the shoulders," as mentioned in the title. People often think that change occurs when everyone rises up. That there's some revolutionary moment, where everyone starts to boot off. However, in reality I suspect things begin to change when a large chunk of people just start sitting on the fence.

To give an example.

Let's say you have protestors protesting a particular issue. To keep it simple let's just say on the one side of the issue you have left wing people, and on the other right. Now let's say a right wing person turns up and punches a left wing protestor. In normal times what happens is all sides condemn the person committing the assault. Even though the right wing people are on the opposite side of the particular issue, they nevertheless take the side of the person assaulted. Even to the point that they'll want the assaulter prosecuted and jailed. As basic principles are much more important than the particular political issue at hand.

However, when things become very strained, this stops happening. If the people on one side of the divide have went too far - and exhausted the good will of their opponents, then people stop interjecting. They shrug their shoulders.

So now, if a protestor gets punched, they don't raise their voice in condemnation. They don't demand the assaulter gets prosecuted. They just keep quiet. It's not necessarily that they support the assault. They may be very uncomfortable with the idea. They may still believe it's completely wrong. It's just that now they don't care enough to step in. Or that they feel, if not think, that the person deserved to be punched, so conveniently avoid having to make themselves think about it.

Or they think, "Well, these people have went so far, who am I to say violence isn't a justified response? If I step in to condemn this am I making things worse by defending and facilitating these people." That is, they're just not sure anymore.

Again, like myself above, and my indecision as to whether to condemn the vandalism of ULEZ cameras. "I think it's wrong to vandalise things ..but these people pushing these ULEZ schemes really are pushing their luck."

When enough people step back, Robin Hood can step in, safe in the knowledge that the common people won't step in, to hand him over to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Look The Other Way

I actually saw a tweet earlier from Alastair Campbell. He was commenting on Iain Duncan Smith's comments, and he noted that most the MPs and media had "looked the other way" on it.

This isn't entirely true of course, it has been commented upon and discussed. However, he's right in perceiving that the outcry hasn't been quite as strong as it once would've been.

Campbell puts it down to terrible Tory Britain. I would put it down to people shrugging their shoulders.

Roseberry Topping in August

I was out and about yesterday - went up Roseberry Topping to do some filming. I always like these posts, as all I really have to do is share pictures. It's nice and easy.

(click to enlarge)

We're blessed with some beautiful landscape. I went on Twitter this morning to find debate about the potential pollution that will be caused by the government giving the green light for more housing. The sort of people that scream most about damage to the environment often tend to be the same people demanding hundreds of thousands more in net migration - which obviously requires more housing to be built. Not to mention the added roads, sewers and services.

There are arguments both ways, and I feel a little bit selfish saying I want to keep this landscape for myself. However, I wish the people screaming would be more honest and a bit less muddle-headed. You can't have it all ways. You have to strike a balance. If you want more people that means more incursions into nature.

Gold Standards Don't Work

The other week I had the flu - well, a cold - but it was enough for me to sit around for a few days doing nothing. As it happens it was something of a blessing, as in my lazy, snotty boredom I ended up watching videos about the history of money. This clarified in my mind why gold isn't a good currency, and why gold standards aren't a good idea.

A currency is something that helps lubricate the economy. An oil that helps people trade their time and goods.

So a good currency isn't just something that gives people confidence that it's a good store of value. It also has to be readily available enough that everyone has access to it. The peasant paying his landlord, the old woman buying her loaf of bread, the businessman making his trades.

It's something that balances these two things. Rare enough to be worth something, but common enough to be readily utilised.

This is why gold isn't good as a currency. It's too rare. Too precious.

It's a great store of value, but not a great currency.

It's similar with Bitcoin. That too, like gold, is more a store of value than a currency. It is scarce, therefore people value it. Therefore people are reluctant to let go of it.

An Example

For instance, let's say you're someone who owns gold and/or Bitcoin, and you want to buy something that costs £10. You'll be more than happy enough to spend £10 in pounds sterling to buy it, however if someone suggests you use your gold or Bitcoin, you'll balk at the idea. As you believe over time your gold will increase in value relative to other things, and you believe your Bitcoin is "Going to the Moon."

So as gold is a very, very good store of value, you're very, very reluctant to let go of it. You'd much rather use something less precious for daily transactions.

Gold, Silver and Copper

Historically it was generally silver that was used as a standard, not gold. This makes sense as silver is less precious, and it's a natural intermediary between gold and copper. People would generally use copper and silver coins for normal trade.

Supposedly, gold only really began being used as a de facto standard around 300 years ago by Britain. It probably worked quite well for Britain because Britain was the ascendant power, and the rest of the world still used silver - so it was a luxury position. However, when everyone else jumped on the gold standard in the 19th century that appears to be when things started going a bit haywire, and when gold decoupled from silver.

This makes sense, as pegging an entire economy to one commodity - especially the most precious and rare commodity - is asking for trouble. People are always going to want to hold on to gold, and especially so when things start looking dicey. How can you lubricate everyday trade with something no-one wants to let go of?

Again, even in the days of silver standards, things were much more organic, and people used multiple other things as currency too. They had a degree of freedom to trade and barter without every transaction being watched and taxed by government - and the tax needing to be paid in the specific state issued currency.

The modern world with its monolithic governments, taxes and standards is really the straightjacket that's locked everything in to one universal money measure - whatever form it takes.

Fiat-philia

Personally, I actually like fiat currency. This won't be popular, but as an actual currency - an oil for trade - it's much better than something pegged to a specific commodity. Of course, they're open to abuse by governments and banks that are in a position to inflate them, but this also makes them flexible enough to function. If you want a store of value get some gold, but if you want a gold standard then you want something that simply won't work. Appreciate gold for what it is, not what you want it to be.