You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
There’s a huge difference between talented musicisians and songwriters, and the latest industry plant ‘artist’ who will last about 18 months and make almost no money. See also Taylor Swift, who’s sold a million tickets in the US this year, but built off the back of a decade of success, and a genuinely talented musician even if you don’t like her songs.
Madonna is back on tour as well, and Kylie Minogue is top of the charts again and selling out a Vegas residency - two ladies who aren’t the greatest singers in the world, but can sure as hell put on a show and have been doing it for decades.
Depeche Mode are touring again after a gap of 6 years, and 42 years after they first hit the charts, I saw them at Twickenham back in June.
That, though is as much, if not more a function of the collapse in revenue from direct sales, and now increasingly so from streaming as well. Live performance is the one revenue stream that has held its own.
Superb. England is divided, politically, between Labour-inclined regions and Lib Dem-inclined regions, by a line that follows… Watling Street. The Roman road laid in 47 AD.
I live only a few hundred metres from Wattling Street (Old Kent Road/New Cross Road) and can't say I've noticed a dramatic difference in political affiliation on different sides of this ancient thoroughfare... Having said that, this dividing line does look in the right kind of place, between cold England and warm England. North and East vs South and West. There is certainly a difference in culture and outlook between the two, in my experience.
Yes. I’m sure it’s the Danelaw. Tho it’s fascinating to speculate that Watling Street itself created or even followed some earlier divide.
There are several anomalies. The nice bits of Essex and Norfolk and most of Suffolk feel very south to me. They’re on the wrong side of the tracks
Reminds me, this house is advertised as being on a ley line*. Surely a new filter they need to add to Rightmove so that you can cut out all the non-magical houses in your search?
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
There’s a huge difference between talented musicisians and songwriters, and the latest industry plant ‘artist’ who will last about 18 months and make almost no money. See also Taylor Swift, who’s sold a million tickets in the US this year, but built off the back of a decade of success, and a genuinely talented musician even if you don’t like her songs.
Madonna is back on tour as well, and Kylie Minogue is top of the charts again and selling out a Vegas residency - two ladies who aren’t the greatest singers in the world, but can sure as hell put on a show and have been doing it for decades.
Depeche Mode are touring again after a gap of 6 years, and 42 years after they first hit the charts, I saw them at Twickenham back in June.
Depeche Mode always top level. A HUGE contribution to British pop music history.
Absolutely incredible that they have never had a UK top 3 single.
On topic, a really quite striking shift in the reason for byelections.
Is it that our MPs are now more badly behaved? Or is it that they are better policed?
Or is it just that MPs are younger, more likely to resign for other opportunities, and in better health?
I think voters more sympathetic to a party that loses an MP for health reasons than one to misbehavior.
I think better policed. The ability to actually deal with MPs bad behaviour in away that leads to recall has only existed since 2015. How many of these MPs would have hung on without that?
Better policed, but at the same time, I think politics attracts worse people than in the past.
How fondly we all recall the good old days of Moseley, Ramsay, Powell, Boothby, Driberg, Thorpe, Smith, Stonehouse etc.
XL Bullies are sure treated more leniently than Great Danes used to be.
Is Rishi Sunak about to get an unlikely boost by winning both the Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire by-elections?
The national polls might be dire for the Conservatives but it was interesting to hear senior Tory and Labour figures yesterday forecast a double Tory win on Thursday.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
The same decline can be seen in lyrics. Less complexity, more vulgarity. It has been mathematically analysed. And yes of course it is down to intelligence
Why so ? The music market, and the context in which music is consumed, have changed so much in the last few decades that it's more likely a function of external conditions than it is any particular change in general intelligence.
You're just another correlation/causation guy.
At some point you just have to admit I’m right. We have the decline in IQ scores. We have the decline in SAT scores. We have the decline in musical complexity. We have the decline in the complexity of lyrics. We have kids keeping their money in little envelopes so they know what is special money for certain things like Victorian retards. On and on. I’m right
All you have is bluster and “no this can’t be the case”
I would suggest another driver of the perceived blandness of modern mass market music, the 360 deal.
One of the most pernicious changes in the music industry in modern era is 360 deals. Back in the day, record company finds talent, signs talent to deal, record company gave an artist an advance to make a record, perhaps provided support for writing, then they would promote it, distribute it, and obviously take massive cut in order to recoup all the advance (and then some).
Now, they own everything the artist ever does, live, merch, image rights, etc etc etc. And in doing so controls everything about their music, the shows, etc. Their life is basically a tv show in which they have been cast to play the lead role. See all the ex-disney channel stars who have become the big pop stars, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus....
So the record company isn't just thinking about this kind of music is "hot" at the moment, lets find an artist who does this kind of music, they calculating all the avenues for revenue generation and finding somebody to fit that.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
There’s a huge difference between talented musicisians and songwriters, and the latest industry plant ‘artist’ who will last about 18 months and make almost no money. See also Taylor Swift, who’s sold a million tickets in the US this year, but built off the back of a decade of success, and a genuinely talented musician even if you don’t like her songs.
Madonna is back on tour as well, and Kylie Minogue is top of the charts again and selling out a Vegas residency - two ladies who aren’t the greatest singers in the world, but can sure as hell put on a show and have been doing it for decades.
Depeche Mode are touring again after a gap of 6 years, and 42 years after they first hit the charts, I saw them at Twickenham back in June.
Depeche Mode always top level. A HUGE contribution to British pop music history.
Absolutely incredible that they have never had a UK top 3 single.
All very true, but they actually got two Number One ALBUMS in the 1990s (Songs of Faith & Devotion, and Ultra).
Superb. England is divided, politically, between Labour-inclined regions and Lib Dem-inclined regions, by a line that follows… Watling Street. The Roman road laid in 47 AD.
Why, I wonder? First instinct here is just chance. There's also a non-trivial correlation between red and yellow and the locations of the coalfields - which clearly was nothing to do with Watling Street and instinctively seems to make more sense.
But there may be something to it. North of Watling Street we presumably have more Viking ancestry, and, more importantly, a more Viking culture - perhaps collectivism is more part of the northern culture; individualism more part of the southern?
Is there also a production divide? I always got the sense (perhaps incorrectly) that the midlands and north were the industrial heartlands and the south east stayed focussed on agricultural production and the place the rich went on holiday during the industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it couldn't be something more long term like the cultural distinction of Danelaw and such, but still.
If the red had extended a bit further south we'd be discussing the influence of Wessex and the Roman road from Londinium to Aquae Sulis and whatever Newent was called by the locals at the time (probably the same. as Newent is a British name anyway).
#thereisaromanroadforeveryoccasion
Ilford's on the Roman Road from London to Stratford to Romford to Colchester.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
My understanding is the loop pedal station he uses to build his songs live is very difficult.
Indeed, although the real innovator there was KT Tunstall.
My favourite use of that was the guys from 2cellos, who play electric cellos like they’re electric guitars, complete with all the pedals and effects, and who I was lucky enough to see live.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
Edit - and incidently also seems to be a nice bloke with a fine line in self deprecation.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
There is a succession problem in the Democrats and that is one of the issues, IMHO, why Biden is keen to stick it out.
Problem No.1 is Kamala Harris. If Biden bows out, then there will be pressure to elevate his VP. Kamala is not well regarded, to put it mildly.
The other problem is that the most likely inheritors ideologically (the AOCs, the Bernies, even Warren) actively have an argument that takes pot shots at the legacies of the previous Democratic POTUS that are still around and big players in the party, and as long as that is the case there will be fighting. I think it is fair to say that the Obama promise of "Hope and Change" did not happen - but with Barack still around (and likely to be around for a long time) it's very hard to say that. It's why the media fawned over Buttigieg despite voters not caring about him - because he is the Obama mould figure.
Newsom obviously wants the job, but I don't think he'll get it - his recent moderate / conservative streak will shut him out during the primary. I still think
Raphael Warnock might be a good shout if he wins again - a charismatic religious African American from the South. He is also more progressive than Obama was.
Obviously Gretcher Whitmer gets talked about a lot - she took what was becoming a pretty red state and has made it blue, as well as that she has made a big issue out of abortion - and again is more progressive than many top figures in the Democratic party; on legalisation of weed, healthcare, education etc. I think even she would be considered a threat to Obama's legacy...
Can you explain what you mean by "the most likely inheritors ideologically" ? Being of the left of the party is very far from a slam dunk for getting the nomination; quite the opposite indeed.
I think that the centre of the Democratic party is looking at losing the argument - Biden has moved significantly leftwards throughout his career and as president, and he is a good example of a Democratic politician who basically sticks to stuff that is popular in his party base.
Also older African American and Latino voters are a lot more moderate / conservative. With African Americans this is shown by their tendency to back what they view as the "electable" candidate, even if they don't support their policies, and very few voting for the GOP. With Latinos, this is shown with quite a few voting for the GOP (although there are significant differences between the different origins of people collectively known as Latinos). This is changing with younger African Americans and Latinos, where you're seeing a slight increase in the number of conservative voters, alongside a huge slide in centrists and a big growth in the left of the party.
Bernie Sanders may not have won a Presidential primary, but he is the 3rd most popular Democrat after Obama and Carter (despite not being a Democrat) and is second after Obama with millennials. AOC is in the top 10, and top 5 with millennials. The Democratic party leadership is still being run by politicians of the baby boomer generation, but it looks like Gen X might get skipped and it will go straight to millennials. The labour movement is also going from strength to strength, as is hugely popular, which has not really been the case since Reagan. Whilst union membership isn't increasing as much as their popularity, it still suggests a change in political attitudes.
I don't think this is the "generational bomb" that Democrats have always said will come at some point, I think it is mostly the material conditions of living during peak capitalism for most people is bad in the US and only one party looks like it could be a vehicle for positive change, however slow, whilst the other party is only a vehicle for white grievance. Now there are a lot of people in the US who hold that white grievance, and the GOP are especially good at using the mechanisms of the US "vetocracy" so that even when in the minority they can block policy; but things like this speaker crisis and just the sheer popularity of lots of centre-left policies make that white grievance coalition stick together.
AOC, "the squad", and Bernie Saunders are very popular with the Democratic base, but still well to the left of the mid-point in US politics. I think they're unelectable at national level.
Looking, for example, at this poll on Israel, the Democratic Left are very much at odds with US public opinion.
Superb. England is divided, politically, between Labour-inclined regions and Lib Dem-inclined regions, by a line that follows… Watling Street. The Roman road laid in 47 AD.
Why, I wonder? First instinct here is just chance. There's also a non-trivial correlation between red and yellow and the locations of the coalfields - which clearly was nothing to do with Watling Street and instinctively seems to make more sense.
But there may be something to it. North of Watling Street we presumably have more Viking ancestry, and, more importantly, a more Viking culture - perhaps collectivism is more part of the northern culture; individualism more part of the southern?
Is there also a production divide? I always got the sense (perhaps incorrectly) that the midlands and north were the industrial heartlands and the south east stayed focussed on agricultural production and the place the rich went on holiday during the industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it couldn't be something more long term like the cultural distinction of Danelaw and such, but still.
If the red had extended a bit further south we'd be discussing the influence of Wessex and the Roman road from Londinium to Aquae Sulis and whatever Newent was called by the locals at the time (probably the same. as Newent is a British name anyway).
#thereisaromanroadforeveryoccasion
Ilford's on the Roman Road from London to Stratford to Romford to Colchester.
On topic, a really quite striking shift in the reason for byelections.
Is it that our MPs are now more badly behaved? Or is it that they are better policed?
Or is it just that MPs are younger, more likely to resign for other opportunities, and in better health?
I think voters more sympathetic to a party that loses an MP for health reasons than one to misbehavior.
I think better policed. The ability to actually deal with MPs bad behaviour in away that leads to recall has only existed since 2015. How many of these MPs would have hung on without that?
Better policed, but at the same time, I think politics attracts worse people than in the past.
How fondly we all recall the good old days of Moseley, Ramsay, Powell, Boothby, Driberg, Thorpe, Smith, Stonehouse etc.
XL Bullies are sure treated more leniently than Great Danes used to be.
A young friend of mine is working in a primary school in SW England - returning to education after a long break. She says the kids are the stupidest she has ever seen, and autism is almost the norm
It’s just one person’s view. But her shock is genuine and she’s not given to lying. It’s a concern coz these kids are the ones who went through Covid and lockdown as tiny infants. What did it do to them?
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
I'm not sure that the key change is a mark of great music - it's generally just a cheap trick to give a song a bit of a boost if its intrinsic qualities are lacking. Music has different functions. If you're looking for something to dance to for six hours you're not going to be interested in lyrical complexity. Technology has democratised music too, but means you don't necessarily need the same depth of talent and musicianship or long apprenticeship to make a record. Lennon and McCartney played many thousands of hours together before they sat down to write a song. I imagine it has also winnowed out the pool of session musicians from whom some of the great songwriters and producers emerged, people like Nile Rodgers or the guys from ABBA.
But it is measureable and speaks to a reduction in complexity which is also matched in other aspects of music.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
Synthwave cover of "Mama" by Genesis/Phil Collins with a nonphotorealistic AI-generated video.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Shashank Joshi @shashj · 4h “Now, for the first time in over four decades, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the entire armoured corps has been called up. This is a massive force … it is understood to include over 1,000 main battle tanks.”
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Ed Sheeran is excellent. He is genuinely one of the greatest artists of the pop era even though he has only been up there for a relatively short while (since 2010 ish A Team).
The quality of his material and his record sales verify that.
Yes, clearly lots of people like him. Personally, I just don't *get* his music. It does nothing for me. It irritates me. I'm largely bored by songs about romantic relationships*. But then, I like the Fall, and lots of people don't *get* Mark E Smith. I will argue all day that MES is more of a genius than Ed Sheeran, but even I will concede that Ed is the more talented musician.
*A quick scan at my top 20 most played on my ipod has the subject matter of my favourite songs as follows: - not working - fuck knows - fuck knows - wanting a girl as cool as Kim Deal - the lifestyles of young urban Bohemian types - a tramp getting killed in an earthquake - solving problems - best not to speculate - the environment - just a barrage of imagery, really - romantic love, I suppose - ditto - ditto - ditto - Nothing at all - Aliens - Being obsessed with the Krays - Samson and Delilah - Nothing - romantic love, again, I suppose.
Thanks for the interesting and concise header, Mike.
My comments are:
1 - That suggests that recall petitions are working rather more effectively than I expected at the time of introduction.
2 - The greater intolerance of misconduct is a positive, I think.
A careful balance is needed because potentially particular MPs or Ministers / Shadow Ministers could be targeted for false, historic or less serious allegations - suspension potentially stopping individual careers in their tracks.
Is the balance about right?
3 - Is there a shift from the earlier in a Parliament to later in a Parliament?
There is a succession problem in the Democrats and that is one of the issues, IMHO, why Biden is keen to stick it out.
Problem No.1 is Kamala Harris. If Biden bows out, then there will be pressure to elevate his VP. Kamala is not well regarded, to put it mildly.
The other problem is that the most likely inheritors ideologically (the AOCs, the Bernies, even Warren) actively have an argument that takes pot shots at the legacies of the previous Democratic POTUS that are still around and big players in the party, and as long as that is the case there will be fighting. I think it is fair to say that the Obama promise of "Hope and Change" did not happen - but with Barack still around (and likely to be around for a long time) it's very hard to say that. It's why the media fawned over Buttigieg despite voters not caring about him - because he is the Obama mould figure.
Newsom obviously wants the job, but I don't think he'll get it - his recent moderate / conservative streak will shut him out during the primary. I still think
Raphael Warnock might be a good shout if he wins again - a charismatic religious African American from the South. He is also more progressive than Obama was.
Obviously Gretcher Whitmer gets talked about a lot - she took what was becoming a pretty red state and has made it blue, as well as that she has made a big issue out of abortion - and again is more progressive than many top figures in the Democratic party; on legalisation of weed, healthcare, education etc. I think even she would be considered a threat to Obama's legacy...
Can you explain what you mean by "the most likely inheritors ideologically" ? Being of the left of the party is very far from a slam dunk for getting the nomination; quite the opposite indeed.
I think that the centre of the Democratic party is looking at losing the argument - Biden has moved significantly leftwards throughout his career and as president, and he is a good example of a Democratic politician who basically sticks to stuff that is popular in his party base.
Also older African American and Latino voters are a lot more moderate / conservative. With African Americans this is shown by their tendency to back what they view as the "electable" candidate, even if they don't support their policies, and very few voting for the GOP. With Latinos, this is shown with quite a few voting for the GOP (although there are significant differences between the different origins of people collectively known as Latinos). This is changing with younger African Americans and Latinos, where you're seeing a slight increase in the number of conservative voters, alongside a huge slide in centrists and a big growth in the left of the party.
Bernie Sanders may not have won a Presidential primary, but he is the 3rd most popular Democrat after Obama and Carter (despite not being a Democrat) and is second after Obama with millennials. AOC is in the top 10, and top 5 with millennials. The Democratic party leadership is still being run by politicians of the baby boomer generation, but it looks like Gen X might get skipped and it will go straight to millennials. The labour movement is also going from strength to strength, as is hugely popular, which has not really been the case since Reagan. Whilst union membership isn't increasing as much as their popularity, it still suggests a change in political attitudes.
I don't think this is the "generational bomb" that Democrats have always said will come at some point, I think it is mostly the material conditions of living during peak capitalism for most people is bad in the US and only one party looks like it could be a vehicle for positive change, however slow, whilst the other party is only a vehicle for white grievance. Now there are a lot of people in the US who hold that white grievance, and the GOP are especially good at using the mechanisms of the US "vetocracy" so that even when in the minority they can block policy; but things like this speaker crisis and just the sheer popularity of lots of centre-left policies make that white grievance coalition stick together.
AOC, "the squad", and Bernie Saunders are very popular with the Democratic base, but still well to the left of the mid-point in US politics. I think they're unelectable at national level.
Looking, for example, at this poll on Israel, the Democratic Left are very much at odds with US public opinion.
Presidents are not elected on foreign policy - they are elected on domestic policy, and the populism of the left is very popular even with some traditional independents and even GOP voters (although I think the GOP voters would be more willing to support Sanders than, say, AOC for more identity based reasons). Indeed - Trumps economic populism was popular and massively out of step with GOP orthodoxy - don't touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid (but do dump Obamacare, which didn't happen because it wasn't actually a popular policy to dump it) and to become more protectionist in trade. If instead of just saying "we won't cut the social safety net" you had candidates actively arguing for its expansion - I think they would do well.
We needn’t worry about music THAT much. AI is about to take over the task - it will create trillions of hours of music, for free, that caters to all tastes, as complex and simple as you like. It will synthesise new forms of music we’ve never heard before, it will be better than human music the same way computers are better at chess
It might also replace musicians and pop stars themselves, with synthetic avatars in CGI videos, who never get old and never ravish underage fans
300,000 years of human creativity is coming to an end
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
I'm not sure that the key change is a mark of great music - it's generally just a cheap trick to give a song a bit of a boost if its intrinsic qualities are lacking. Music has different functions. If you're looking for something to dance to for six hours you're not going to be interested in lyrical complexity. Technology has democratised music too, but means you don't necessarily need the same depth of talent and musicianship or long apprenticeship to make a record. Lennon and McCartney played many thousands of hours together before they sat down to write a song. I imagine it has also winnowed out the pool of session musicians from whom some of the great songwriters and producers emerged, people like Nile Rodgers or the guys from ABBA.
But it is measureable and speaks to a reduction in complexity which is also matched in other aspects of music.
Complexity does not equal better or smarter - indeed simple solutions are often the better ones. Lots of simple music is amazing.
Question for people in their 70s and 80s: Are the reactionary brainworms of people in their 50s and 60s getting worse, or is that something that every generation thinks when they're in their 40s?
I was quite shocked by how old, and indeed feeble, Biden, looked on TV yesterday.
Irrespective of your views of Joe Biden as a politician, as a human being it really can’t be in his best interests to be still wanting to do this job for more than another five years. He’s clearly in very poor health, which is noticeably deteriorating.
The Dems really should open up their primary process, and choose someone else.
Fox etc. have been claiming this since day one. I don’t know. I do know that Biden remains cognitively stronger than Trump. Trump repeatedly talks about Obama being President, he thought the next world war will be World War II, he said Republicans “eat their young”, his speeches become ever more rambling.
The Republicans would be in a much stronger position if they could replace Trump with anyone vaguely sane and non-criminal. For starters, they might be able to pick a Speaker.
Trump and Biden need each other.
The USA needs neither.
I don’t think Trump needs Biden. The MAGA Right are so deep into their own fantasy world that they’ll just make shit up about whoever is the Dem nominee.
But take away Biden and Trump's senility is exposed for all to see.
Likewise take away Hunter Biden and Trump's criminality is more exposed.
Maybe, but unless the Dems nominate the risen Jesus Christ, the MAGA Right will just find something about any Dem nominee and then make stuff up. Truth is simply irrelevant to a section of Republican voters fed non-stop misinformation.
The MAGA crowd might be big enough to get Trump the nomination but they're not big enough to win Trump the Presidency.
For that Trump needs lots of independents and centrists as well.
I think the volume of lies generated by the MAGA Right do influence the broader political discourse. Obviously, your political opponents are always going to criticise you, that's their job, but the degree to which sheer nonsense distorts US discourse is horrendous.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
I'd say Sheeran is both better and worse than Phil Collins. His weighted average song is stronger but Collins top stuff (eg I Can Feel Him Coming in the Air Tonight) is a notch above.
We needn’t worry about music THAT much. AI is about to take over the task - it will create trillions of hours of music, for free, that caters to all tastes, as complex and simple as you like. It will synthesise new forms of music we’ve never heard before, it will be better than human music the same way computers are better at chess
It might also replace musicians and pop stars themselves, with synthetic avatars in CGI videos, who never get old and never ravish underage fans
300,000 years of human creativity is coming to an end
A computer parrot will not be able to create music with half the humanity of "Twinkle twinkle little star" and if you believe it can you don't understand the value of human art.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
I'm not sure that the key change is a mark of great music - it's generally just a cheap trick to give a song a bit of a boost if its intrinsic qualities are lacking. Music has different functions. If you're looking for something to dance to for six hours you're not going to be interested in lyrical complexity. Technology has democratised music too, but means you don't necessarily need the same depth of talent and musicianship or long apprenticeship to make a record. Lennon and McCartney played many thousands of hours together before they sat down to write a song. I imagine it has also winnowed out the pool of session musicians from whom some of the great songwriters and producers emerged, people like Nile Rodgers or the guys from ABBA.
But it is measureable and speaks to a reduction in complexity which is also matched in other aspects of music.
Complexity does not equal better or smarter - indeed simple solutions are often the better ones. Lots of simple music is amazing.
I didn't say it did. If you note my initial reply I was disagreeing with Leon about the IQ relevance. But it is interesting to note thaht there is a general decline in complexity and it is not, again in my view, something to be welcomed.
A young friend of mine is working in a primary school in SW England - returning to education after a long break. She says the kids are the stupidest she has ever seen, and autism is almost the norm
It’s just one person’s view. But her shock is genuine and she’s not given to lying. It’s a concern coz these kids are the ones who went through Covid and lockdown as tiny infants. What did it do to them?
The kids who are currently years reception-4 are, from what I have heard, a bit fucked. My youngest is in year 4, and there are something like trips the number of SEN cases that there were in my older two daughters' years. And this is at a quite middle class school where parents during covid just about managed. At schools in working class areas - where parents couldn't really semi-supervise young kids, huge numbers are turning up basically mute and/or not toilet trained and/or unable to properly interact with peers.
As a parent: my God it was awful. With the exception of a brief window of hope in the summer, I genuinely wanted to kill myself every single day from about April-December 2020.
We needn’t worry about music THAT much. AI is about to take over the task - it will create trillions of hours of music, for free, that caters to all tastes, as complex and simple as you like. It will synthesise new forms of music we’ve never heard before, it will be better than human music the same way computers are better at chess
It might also replace musicians and pop stars themselves, with synthetic avatars in CGI videos, who never get old and never ravish underage fans
300,000 years of human creativity is coming to an end
This is probably about as accurate a prediction as those claiming that CDs and downloading would lead to the end of vinyl.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
The way this inquiry appears to be structured, makes it almost certain that there will be an utterly flat-footed response to the next major crisis, as everyone involved thinks primarily about how their discussions and actions will look like in a court several years later, with the benefit of perfect hindsight.
What a total mess, they should have got people from the AAIB and RAIB to lead, those who understand that the idea is to improve things for the future, rather than blame people for the past.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
Phil Collins was quite interesting, musically. Certainly if you look back to 'Turn it on again' - I like a song with a baffling time signature. Also, quite an agreeably wide range of subject matter. I don't own any Collins/Genesis but I wouldn't mind if he came on the radio.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
The way this inquiry appears to be structured, makes it almost certain that there will be an utterly flat-footed response to the next major crisis, as everyone involved thinks primarily about how their discussions and actions will look like in a court several years later, with the benefit of perfect hindsight.
What a total mess, they should have got people from the AAIB and RAIB to lead, those who understand that the idea is to improve things for the future, rather than blame people for the past.
It was always going to be the way. Arse covering all round.
Shashank Joshi @shashj · 4h “Now, for the first time in over four decades, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the entire armoured corps has been called up. This is a massive force … it is understood to include over 1,000 main battle tanks.”
Hmmm. Much depends on how many drones Iran supplied to Hamas in the last few months.
I was quite shocked by how old, and indeed feeble, Biden, looked on TV yesterday.
Irrespective of your views of Joe Biden as a politician, as a human being it really can’t be in his best interests to be still wanting to do this job for more than another five years. He’s clearly in very poor health, which is noticeably deteriorating.
The Dems really should open up their primary process, and choose someone else.
Fox etc. have been claiming this since day one. I don’t know. I do know that Biden remains cognitively stronger than Trump. Trump repeatedly talks about Obama being President, he thought the next world war will be World War II, he said Republicans “eat their young”, his speeches become ever more rambling.
The Republicans would be in a much stronger position if they could replace Trump with anyone vaguely sane and non-criminal. For starters, they might be able to pick a Speaker.
Trump and Biden need each other.
The USA needs neither.
I don’t think Trump needs Biden. The MAGA Right are so deep into their own fantasy world that they’ll just make shit up about whoever is the Dem nominee.
But take away Biden and Trump's senility is exposed for all to see.
Likewise take away Hunter Biden and Trump's criminality is more exposed.
Maybe, but unless the Dems nominate the risen Jesus Christ, the MAGA Right will just find something about any Dem nominee and then make stuff up. Truth is simply irrelevant to a section of Republican voters fed non-stop misinformation.
The MAGA crowd might be big enough to get Trump the nomination but they're not big enough to win Trump the Presidency.
For that Trump needs lots of independents and centrists as well.
I think the volume of lies generated by the MAGA Right do influence the broader political discourse. Obviously, your political opponents are always going to criticise you, that's their job, but the degree to which sheer nonsense distorts US discourse is horrendous.
People need to remember that in the 2016 election Trump was viewed as the more moderate out of him and Clinton - he was not considered a far right candidate (wrongly in my view). This was partly because people saw him as his TV persona, and partly because of his split from GOP orthodoxy (no one could claim Trump was sincerely pro life, christofascist, or a full on Reaganite on economics). This changed during his presidency, both because he kind of let the old school Reaganite GOP lot do most of what they wanted on tax cuts and deregulation (which was unpopular) and also he did embrace the far right (you saw a significant trend in support post "good people on both sides" at Charlottesville).
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
Wouldn't you agree, baby you and me Got a groovy kind of Gove.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
But did he write his "evening notes" in a personal journal, or a work diary? If the former, then it's entirely right that they should remain private and, indeed, no one even needs to know they exist. If the latter, that seems a rather foolish thing to have done, not least because it makes his personal thoughts and opinions harder to separate from his work notes.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
I'm not sure that the key change is a mark of great music - it's generally just a cheap trick to give a song a bit of a boost if its intrinsic qualities are lacking. Music has different functions. If you're looking for something to dance to for six hours you're not going to be interested in lyrical complexity. Technology has democratised music too, but means you don't necessarily need the same depth of talent and musicianship or long apprenticeship to make a record. Lennon and McCartney played many thousands of hours together before they sat down to write a song. I imagine it has also winnowed out the pool of session musicians from whom some of the great songwriters and producers emerged, people like Nile Rodgers or the guys from ABBA.
But it is measureable and speaks to a reduction in complexity which is also matched in other aspects of music.
Complexity does not equal better or smarter - indeed simple solutions are often the better ones. Lots of simple music is amazing.
I didn't say it did. If you note my initial reply I was disagreeing with Leon about the IQ relevance. But it is interesting to note thaht there is a general decline in complexity and it is not, again in my view, something to be welcomed.
On complexity: back in the early 70s, it was quite hard to release music you had written, and only quite a select few were able to. The gatekeepers to the industry saw to it that most of those who were responsible for producing music were quite adept at doing so. This didn't mean that all music was complex - talented songwriters can write simple songs too - but it did mean the chances of getting complex music out there were moderately high. Then punk and new wave and indie happened, and suddenly a much wider range of people could release music. And then the internet happened, and it broadened again. So the really complex music made by the really talented musicians and songwriters now accounts for a rather smaller proportion of what is released.
There is almost certainly as much really complex music out there, if not more so. But there is much, much more at the simpler end of the spectrum, so the complex stuff gets less prominence.
There is a succession problem in the Democrats and that is one of the issues, IMHO, why Biden is keen to stick it out.
Problem No.1 is Kamala Harris. If Biden bows out, then there will be pressure to elevate his VP. Kamala is not well regarded, to put it mildly.
The other problem is that the most likely inheritors ideologically (the AOCs, the Bernies, even Warren) actively have an argument that takes pot shots at the legacies of the previous Democratic POTUS that are still around and big players in the party, and as long as that is the case there will be fighting. I think it is fair to say that the Obama promise of "Hope and Change" did not happen - but with Barack still around (and likely to be around for a long time) it's very hard to say that. It's why the media fawned over Buttigieg despite voters not caring about him - because he is the Obama mould figure.
Newsom obviously wants the job, but I don't think he'll get it - his recent moderate / conservative streak will shut him out during the primary. I still think
Raphael Warnock might be a good shout if he wins again - a charismatic religious African American from the South. He is also more progressive than Obama was.
Obviously Gretcher Whitmer gets talked about a lot - she took what was becoming a pretty red state and has made it blue, as well as that she has made a big issue out of abortion - and again is more progressive than many top figures in the Democratic party; on legalisation of weed, healthcare, education etc. I think even she would be considered a threat to Obama's legacy...
Can you explain what you mean by "the most likely inheritors ideologically" ? Being of the left of the party is very far from a slam dunk for getting the nomination; quite the opposite indeed.
I think that the centre of the Democratic party is looking at losing the argument - Biden has moved significantly leftwards throughout his career and as president, and he is a good example of a Democratic politician who basically sticks to stuff that is popular in his party base.
Also older African American and Latino voters are a lot more moderate / conservative. With African Americans this is shown by their tendency to back what they view as the "electable" candidate, even if they don't support their policies, and very few voting for the GOP. With Latinos, this is shown with quite a few voting for the GOP (although there are significant differences between the different origins of people collectively known as Latinos). This is changing with younger African Americans and Latinos, where you're seeing a slight increase in the number of conservative voters, alongside a huge slide in centrists and a big growth in the left of the party.
Bernie Sanders may not have won a Presidential primary, but he is the 3rd most popular Democrat after Obama and Carter (despite not being a Democrat) and is second after Obama with millennials. AOC is in the top 10, and top 5 with millennials. The Democratic party leadership is still being run by politicians of the baby boomer generation, but it looks like Gen X might get skipped and it will go straight to millennials. The labour movement is also going from strength to strength, as is hugely popular, which has not really been the case since Reagan. Whilst union membership isn't increasing as much as their popularity, it still suggests a change in political attitudes.
I don't think this is the "generational bomb" that Democrats have always said will come at some point, I think it is mostly the material conditions of living during peak capitalism for most people is bad in the US and only one party looks like it could be a vehicle for positive change, however slow, whilst the other party is only a vehicle for white grievance. Now there are a lot of people in the US who hold that white grievance, and the GOP are especially good at using the mechanisms of the US "vetocracy" so that even when in the minority they can block policy; but things like this speaker crisis and just the sheer popularity of lots of centre-left policies make that white grievance coalition stick together.
AOC, "the squad", and Bernie Saunders are very popular with the Democratic base, but still well to the left of the mid-point in US politics. I think they're unelectable at national level.
Looking, for example, at this poll on Israel, the Democratic Left are very much at odds with US public opinion.
Presidents are not elected on foreign policy - they are elected on domestic policy, and the populism of the left is very popular even with some traditional independents and even GOP voters (although I think the GOP voters would be more willing to support Sanders than, say, AOC for more identity based reasons). Indeed - Trumps economic populism was popular and massively out of step with GOP orthodoxy - don't touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid (but do dump Obamacare, which didn't happen because it wasn't actually a popular policy to dump it) and to become more protectionist in trade. If instead of just saying "we won't cut the social safety net" you had candidates actively arguing for its expansion - I think they would do well.
My headcanon says that Sanders would have won in 2016. The US Republicans went populist early and won, the Democrat hierarchy beat the scabrous Left and lost. They should have learned but didn't, and now the unions and Hispanics are trending right.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
The way this inquiry appears to be structured, makes it almost certain that there will be an utterly flat-footed response to the next major crisis, as everyone involved thinks primarily about how their discussions and actions will look like in a court several years later, with the benefit of perfect hindsight.
What a total mess, they should have got people from the AAIB and RAIB to lead, those who understand that the idea is to improve things for the future, rather than blame people for the past.
It was always going to be the way. Arse covering all round.
Which means that we spend years and tens of millions, to learn almost nothing.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
Phil Collins was quite interesting, musically. Certainly if you look back to 'Turn it on again' - I like a song with a baffling time signature. Also, quite an agreeably wide range of subject matter. I don't own any Collins/Genesis but I wouldn't mind if he came on the radio.
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your a**hole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
We needn’t worry about music THAT much. AI is about to take over the task - it will create trillions of hours of music, for free, that caters to all tastes, as complex and simple as you like. It will synthesise new forms of music we’ve never heard before, it will be better than human music the same way computers are better at chess
It might also replace musicians and pop stars themselves, with synthetic avatars in CGI videos, who never get old and never ravish underage fans
300,000 years of human creativity is coming to an end
Let us know when you think AI has created something as good as even the first 90 seconds of Der Rosenkavalier or the first 20 seconds of Verdi's Falstaff; let us know when it produces something that holds an audience enraptured and engaged for 14 hours as the Ring manages to do.
A young friend of mine is working in a primary school in SW England - returning to education after a long break. She says the kids are the stupidest she has ever seen, and autism is almost the norm
It’s just one person’s view. But her shock is genuine and she’s not given to lying. It’s a concern coz these kids are the ones who went through Covid and lockdown as tiny infants. What did it do to them?
The kids who are currently years reception-4 are, from what I have heard, a bit fucked. My youngest is in year 4, and there are something like trips the number of SEN cases that there were in my older two daughters' years. And this is at a quite middle class school where parents during covid just about managed. At schools in working class areas - where parents couldn't really semi-supervise young kids, huge numbers are turning up basically mute and/or not toilet trained and/or unable to properly interact with peers.
As a parent: my God it was awful. With the exception of a brief window of hope in the summer, I genuinely wanted to kill myself every single day from about April-December 2020.
My sister works at a nursery and has similar anecdotal comments about the development of children - but this is just a case of stunted development that would be manageable if our country took the development and education of our children seriously (lol). But her comments are more that they're just slightly less sociable, a bit quieter, need a bit more help when they start - but they tend to leave on track (because children are, by nature, good at learning quickly). It's only if we pair that stunted development with no support that we're seriously buggering up a generation... which, yes, is a sincere concern with the shower in charge and looking to be in charge in the future, I concede.
Interesting that in a walk from Dover to Worthing he only focuses on the troubled and the poor, the grim and the grimy. Whilst we all know many coastal towns are run down that walk is going to take in quite a few affluent areas too: Rye, Eastbourne, Brighton to mention a few.
Was he hoping for a commission from the NYT?
It's a more positive article than the grim places he probably deliberately sought ought suggests.
After all, he's a former banker who had dropped of the American ratrace, probably the most frantic and soulless and obsessive ratrace in the world, and is now walking the globe and writing about it.
There is a succession problem in the Democrats and that is one of the issues, IMHO, why Biden is keen to stick it out.
Problem No.1 is Kamala Harris. If Biden bows out, then there will be pressure to elevate his VP. Kamala is not well regarded, to put it mildly.
The other problem is that the most likely inheritors ideologically (the AOCs, the Bernies, even Warren) actively have an argument that takes pot shots at the legacies of the previous Democratic POTUS that are still around and big players in the party, and as long as that is the case there will be fighting. I think it is fair to say that the Obama promise of "Hope and Change" did not happen - but with Barack still around (and likely to be around for a long time) it's very hard to say that. It's why the media fawned over Buttigieg despite voters not caring about him - because he is the Obama mould figure.
Newsom obviously wants the job, but I don't think he'll get it - his recent moderate / conservative streak will shut him out during the primary. I still think
Raphael Warnock might be a good shout if he wins again - a charismatic religious African American from the South. He is also more progressive than Obama was.
Obviously Gretcher Whitmer gets talked about a lot - she took what was becoming a pretty red state and has made it blue, as well as that she has made a big issue out of abortion - and again is more progressive than many top figures in the Democratic party; on legalisation of weed, healthcare, education etc. I think even she would be considered a threat to Obama's legacy...
Can you explain what you mean by "the most likely inheritors ideologically" ? Being of the left of the party is very far from a slam dunk for getting the nomination; quite the opposite indeed.
I think that the centre of the Democratic party is looking at losing the argument - Biden has moved significantly leftwards throughout his career and as president, and he is a good example of a Democratic politician who basically sticks to stuff that is popular in his party base.
Also older African American and Latino voters are a lot more moderate / conservative. With African Americans this is shown by their tendency to back what they view as the "electable" candidate, even if they don't support their policies, and very few voting for the GOP. With Latinos, this is shown with quite a few voting for the GOP (although there are significant differences between the different origins of people collectively known as Latinos). This is changing with younger African Americans and Latinos, where you're seeing a slight increase in the number of conservative voters, alongside a huge slide in centrists and a big growth in the left of the party.
Bernie Sanders may not have won a Presidential primary, but he is the 3rd most popular Democrat after Obama and Carter (despite not being a Democrat) and is second after Obama with millennials. AOC is in the top 10, and top 5 with millennials. The Democratic party leadership is still being run by politicians of the baby boomer generation, but it looks like Gen X might get skipped and it will go straight to millennials. The labour movement is also going from strength to strength, as is hugely popular, which has not really been the case since Reagan. Whilst union membership isn't increasing as much as their popularity, it still suggests a change in political attitudes.
I don't think this is the "generational bomb" that Democrats have always said will come at some point, I think it is mostly the material conditions of living during peak capitalism for most people is bad in the US and only one party looks like it could be a vehicle for positive change, however slow, whilst the other party is only a vehicle for white grievance. Now there are a lot of people in the US who hold that white grievance, and the GOP are especially good at using the mechanisms of the US "vetocracy" so that even when in the minority they can block policy; but things like this speaker crisis and just the sheer popularity of lots of centre-left policies make that white grievance coalition stick together.
AOC, "the squad", and Bernie Saunders are very popular with the Democratic base, but still well to the left of the mid-point in US politics. I think they're unelectable at national level.
Looking, for example, at this poll on Israel, the Democratic Left are very much at odds with US public opinion.
Presidents are not elected on foreign policy - they are elected on domestic policy, and the populism of the left is very popular even with some traditional independents and even GOP voters (although I think the GOP voters would be more willing to support Sanders than, say, AOC for more identity based reasons). Indeed - Trumps economic populism was popular and massively out of step with GOP orthodoxy - don't touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid (but do dump Obamacare, which didn't happen because it wasn't actually a popular policy to dump it) and to become more protectionist in trade. If instead of just saying "we won't cut the social safety net" you had candidates actively arguing for its expansion - I think they would do well.
My headcanon says that Sanders would have won in 2016. The US Republicans went populist early and won, the Democrat hierarchy beat the scabrous Left and lost. They should have learned but didn't, and now the unions and Hispanics are trending right.
I think it is clear that Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016 (unless centrists found a third party / independent candidate they could convince themselves was worth supporting over Sanders, even if Trump won...)
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
You may be interested in 'This is what it sounds like' by Susan Rogers. She's a producer (of records - she has worked with Prince, among others) turned academic; the book is a long essay on why you like the music you do.
It's a good book, though I think it does miss out on one or two facets which I think are important (lyrical cleverness, for example: I don't feel the need to identify with a singer to enjoy the wordplay).
FWIW, I loathe Rap, drill and Ed Sheeran (well, Ed Sheeran's music. I'm sure he's a pleasant fella.) But also, I prefer punk to prog; and indie to jazz. I like complexity, but I value authenticity more. And also sheer energy.
Mate of mine has been touring with Ed Sheeran as a technician recently. Spoke very highly of him, both in terms of him being decent to work for (he's apparently a genuinely nice bloke, and takes in interest in making sure everything is OK for his team), but also as a musician - apparently he's genuinely talented, even if not to everyone's taste.
Yes, Ed Sheeran is one of those artists it is fashionable to mock because his music is popular. He is a seriously talented musician and songwriter and I like his stuff.
Yep. It is not to my taste but I certainly think he is a very skilled musician.
He is the Phil Collins de nos jours
Phil Collins was quite interesting, musically. Certainly if you look back to 'Turn it on again' - I like a song with a baffling time signature. Also, quite an agreeably wide range of subject matter. I don't own any Collins/Genesis but I wouldn't mind if he came on the radio.
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your a**hole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
Also the one he wrote about his wife's infidelity with the gardener. The pain of that.
You can see the decline in IQ in musical tastes. People with lower IQs prefer more vulgar, simplistic music - less lyrically demanding, louder yet coarser, easier time signatures. Rap, drill, K-pop, Ed Sheeran, etc
These are now the most popular forms of music. The difference between the sophisticated pop of 1973 and the idiotic non-music of 2023 is not an illusion, it is not just the old denouncing the young as ever twas, it is real. The listeners got dumb
This is just reactionary nonsense; the equivalent of "blues, jazz and rock and roll show the moral degeneracy of the next generations".
Whilst I disagree with Leon about IQ, what it really is and what it means in terms of 'intelligence', he is right about music becoming more simplistic. This is a measured phenomenon which has been commented on greatly over the last few years in terms of the loss of the key change.
The reasons are apparently the growth of Hip-Hop and the increasing use of computers.
I don't see it in terms of degeneracy nor in terms of 'intellgence' whatever that is, but it is not to my taste.
Worth clicking through to the original research by Chris Dalla Riva.
I'm not sure that the key change is a mark of great music - it's generally just a cheap trick to give a song a bit of a boost if its intrinsic qualities are lacking. Music has different functions. If you're looking for something to dance to for six hours you're not going to be interested in lyrical complexity. Technology has democratised music too, but means you don't necessarily need the same depth of talent and musicianship or long apprenticeship to make a record. Lennon and McCartney played many thousands of hours together before they sat down to write a song. I imagine it has also winnowed out the pool of session musicians from whom some of the great songwriters and producers emerged, people like Nile Rodgers or the guys from ABBA.
But it is measurable and speaks to a reduction in complexity which is also matched in other aspects of music.
My own opinion is that's its largely been downhill since Bach, but that has zero to do with levels of societal intelligence.
Shashank Joshi @shashj · 4h “Now, for the first time in over four decades, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the entire armoured corps has been called up. This is a massive force … it is understood to include over 1,000 main battle tanks.”
Hmmm. Much depends on how many drones Iran supplied to Hamas in the last few months.
Very cheap drone+bomb beats very expensive tank. Very cheap mines beat very expensive infantry. Israel's achilles heel is that it can't do human wave, and as recently pointed out by Perun, it doesn't have equipment depth: its front-rank kit (Merkava, Namer) is phenomenal but its stuff in storage is not (M113s? Oh, fuuuck).
If Hamas can import stuff at scale or have built up stockpiles they will win an urban war. If the blockade holds, Hamas didn't stockpile, and the IDF can stick to defined limited goals then Israel will win.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
But did he write his "evening notes" in a personal journal, or a work diary? If the former, then it's entirely right that they should remain private and, indeed, no one even needs to know they exist. If the latter, that seems a rather foolish thing to have done, not least because it makes his personal thoughts and opinions harder to separate from his work notes.
In legal processes of various sorts it is possible that almost anything that anyone knows exists can be required, including stuff that usually can't be required, to be produced.
So the rules never change.
Absolute secrecy is only available inside your own head.
If you write something down you want no-one to see, then tell no-one at all ever ever, and keep it somewhere odd, (and never take a copy), and then they can't ask for it or find it
If necessary destroy before any legal or law like process starts.
Obviously you can't do this in various formal professional capacities, but it applies to anything personal and not legally required to be created.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
But did he write his "evening notes" in a personal journal, or a work diary? If the former, then it's entirely right that they should remain private and, indeed, no one even needs to know they exist. If the latter, that seems a rather foolish thing to have done, not least because it makes his personal thoughts and opinions harder to separate from his work notes.
In legal processes of various sorts it is possible that almost anything that anyone knows exists can be required, including stuff that usually can't be required, to be produced.
So the rules never change.
Absolute secrecy is only available inside your own head.
If you write something down you want no-one to see, then tell no-one at all ever ever, and keep it somewhere odd, (and never take a copy), and then they can't ask for it or find it
If necessary destroy before any legal or law like process starts.
Obviously you can't do this in various formal professional capacities, but it applies to anything personal and not legally required to be created.
Quite. If you must write it down, definitely don't do it in a work diary. Nor in a text, WhatsApp, or any messaging service, journal app, email or any kind if document. It just feels like incredibly poor judgement. Or maybe just naive.
A young friend of mine is working in a primary school in SW England - returning to education after a long break. She says the kids are the stupidest she has ever seen, and autism is almost the norm
It’s just one person’s view. But her shock is genuine and she’s not given to lying. It’s a concern coz these kids are the ones who went through Covid and lockdown as tiny infants. What did it do to them?
The kids who are currently years reception-4 are, from what I have heard, a bit fucked. My youngest is in year 4, and there are something like trips the number of SEN cases that there were in my older two daughters' years. And this is at a quite middle class school where parents during covid just about managed. At schools in working class areas - where parents couldn't really semi-supervise young kids, huge numbers are turning up basically mute and/or not toilet trained and/or unable to properly interact with peers.
As a parent: my God it was awful. With the exception of a brief window of hope in the summer, I genuinely wanted to kill myself every single day from about April-December 2020.
My sister works at a nursery and has similar anecdotal comments about the development of children - but this is just a case of stunted development that would be manageable if our country took the development and education of our children seriously (lol). But her comments are more that they're just slightly less sociable, a bit quieter, need a bit more help when they start - but they tend to leave on track (because children are, by nature, good at learning quickly). It's only if we pair that stunted development with no support that we're seriously buggering up a generation... which, yes, is a sincere concern with the shower in charge and looking to be in charge in the future, I concede.
The generation who were buggered was the very small one which missed out on nursery. The ones who should have been at nursery in 2020-2022 but were stuck at home on their own with an ipad.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
But did he write his "evening notes" in a personal journal, or a work diary? If the former, then it's entirely right that they should remain private and, indeed, no one even needs to know they exist. If the latter, that seems a rather foolish thing to have done, not least because it makes his personal thoughts and opinions harder to separate from his work notes.
In legal processes of various sorts it is possible that almost anything that anyone knows exists can be required, including stuff that usually can't be required, to be produced.
So the rules never change.
Absolute secrecy is only available inside your own head.
If you write something down you want no-one to see, then tell no-one at all ever ever, and keep it somewhere odd, (and never take a copy), and then they can't ask for it or find it
If necessary destroy before any legal or law like process starts.
Obviously you can't do this in various formal professional capacities, but it applies to anything personal and not legally required to be created.
Quite. If you must write it down, definitely don't do it in a work diary. Nor in a text, WhatsApp, or any messaging service, journal app, email or any kind if document. It just feels like incredibly poor judgement. Or maybe just naive.
Until very recently, things written down in formal memos or perhaps emails could be disclosed to inquiries.
The idea that everyone involved now has to turn over their phones, is novel.
The 'decline of music quality' claims are both right and wrong.
The amount of quality music being produced is higher than ever. But it is increasingly dispersed across different artists, most of whom do not have mainstream appeal. They sell out academy sized concerts rather than stadiums.
Mainstream music I would agree is not as good as it once was. But it isn't difficult to find the quality, with all the quality and sophistication of the music of 50 years ago.
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
Not followed this but are these private diaries or work diaries. If the former I agree, if the latter then he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is stupid for writing stuff he didn't want others to read.
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
As reported, they were his personal notes he wrote to himself at the end of the day, as a way to help him destress and collect his thoughts.
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
But did he write his "evening notes" in a personal journal, or a work diary? If the former, then it's entirely right that they should remain private and, indeed, no one even needs to know they exist. If the latter, that seems a rather foolish thing to have done, not least because it makes his personal thoughts and opinions harder to separate from his work notes.
In legal processes of various sorts it is possible that almost anything that anyone knows exists can be required, including stuff that usually can't be required, to be produced.
So the rules never change.
Absolute secrecy is only available inside your own head.
If you write something down you want no-one to see, then tell no-one at all ever ever, and keep it somewhere odd, (and never take a copy), and then they can't ask for it or find it
If necessary destroy before any legal or law like process starts.
Obviously you can't do this in various formal professional capacities, but it applies to anything personal and not legally required to be created.
Quite. If you must write it down, definitely don't do it in a work diary. Nor in a text, WhatsApp, or any messaging service, journal app, email or any kind if document. It just feels like incredibly poor judgement. Or maybe just naive.
Until very recently, things written down in formal memos or perhaps emails could be disclosed to inquiries.
The idea that everyone involved now has to turn over their phones, is novel.
At training on FOI legislation years ago, I quickly realised that you have to be very careful writing on anything official, whether jottings or annotations on a work document, and what you put in a work diary, or committing to anything electronically (email, instant messaging, texts, online etc). None of it can be guaranteed to be kept confidential.
On topic, I suspect that MPs behaviour hasn't deteriorated at all over the last 50 years. What has changed is the social acceptability of such behaviour and the extent to which a blind eye is turned. Bullying and sexual harassment are no longer tolerated to the extent they were, especially by young staffers, and Parliament's code of behaviour and processes for dealing with it reflect that. Which is why old dinosaurs like Bone are being caught, because they refuse to change with the times.
The woke have got a lot to answer for, in their refusal to tolerate everyday bullying and sexual harassment by MPs, obviously.
That would be why, 4 days ago, I along with a load of other women of all ages, had to hear a small group of young men shouting "Fuck You" and other obscenities and about how we were past "it" after 30 at us while we were queuing to get into a conference. This went on for over an hour. It disrupted not just us but commuters coming out of the station and everyone else trying to walk along that pavement. We ignored them.
Yes - a lot of intolerance of bullying, other than by those doing the bullying when they think it perfectly ok, of course.
When did it become acceptable to should abuse and obscenities at women old enough to be your mother or grandmother going about their lawful business? We have not become intolerant of bullying and sexual misconduct. It still goes on and finds other ways of expressing itself, even as some congratulate themselves on opposing certain types and ignoring the rest.
Superb. England is divided, politically, between Labour-inclined regions and Lib Dem-inclined regions, by a line that follows… Watling Street. The Roman road laid in 47 AD.
Why, I wonder? First instinct here is just chance. There's also a non-trivial correlation between red and yellow and the locations of the coalfields - which clearly was nothing to do with Watling Street and instinctively seems to make more sense.
But there may be something to it. North of Watling Street we presumably have more Viking ancestry, and, more importantly, a more Viking culture - perhaps collectivism is more part of the northern culture; individualism more part of the southern?
Is there also a production divide? I always got the sense (perhaps incorrectly) that the midlands and north were the industrial heartlands and the south east stayed focussed on agricultural production and the place the rich went on holiday during the industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it couldn't be something more long term like the cultural distinction of Danelaw and such, but still.
Wasn't it C. Northcote Parkinson who humourously suggested a cyclical model of social rise and fall with that dividing line? Entrepreneurs in the north become successful and gravitated to the south and east through the East Midlands and northern Home Counties to the peak of their success and moved to London. Thereafter they indulged themselves, dissipated their fortune and standing, moving west and north through Hampshire and Staffordshire until it was all gone and they were back where they started.
On topic, I suspect that MPs behaviour hasn't deteriorated at all over the last 50 years. What has changed is the social acceptability of such behaviour and the extent to which a blind eye is turned. Bullying and sexual harassment are no longer tolerated to the extent they were, especially by young staffers, and Parliament's code of behaviour and processes for dealing with it reflect that. Which is why old dinosaurs like Bone are being caught, because they refuse to change with the times.
The woke have got a lot to answer for, in their refusal to tolerate everyday bullying and sexual harassment by MPs, obviously.
That would be why, 4 days ago, I along with a load of other women of all ages, had to hear a small group of young men shouting "Fuck You" and other obscenities and about how we were past "it" after 30 at us while we were queuing to get into a conference. This went on for over an hour. It disrupted not just us but commuters coming out of the station and everyone else trying to walk along that pavement. We ignored them.
Yes - a lot of intolerance of bullying, other than by those doing the bullying when they think it perfectly ok, of course.
When did it become acceptable to should abuse and obscenities at women old enough to be your mother or grandmother going about their lawful business? We have not become intolerant of bullying and sexual misconduct. It still goes on and finds other ways of expressing itself, even as some congratulate themselves on opposing certain types and ignoring the rest.
These are the videos of the queue protest at the FiLiA conference (twitter, link) specified above. Weirdly I think there was a similar one last year, so I had to delete another because they were a year old. Due to time constraints they were the best I could get, so if anybody has other first-hand video sources please post.
On topic, I suspect that MPs behaviour hasn't deteriorated at all over the last 50 years. What has changed is the social acceptability of such behaviour and the extent to which a blind eye is turned. Bullying and sexual harassment are no longer tolerated to the extent they were, especially by young staffers, and Parliament's code of behaviour and processes for dealing with it reflect that. Which is why old dinosaurs like Bone are being caught, because they refuse to change with the times.
The woke have got a lot to answer for, in their refusal to tolerate everyday bullying and sexual harassment by MPs, obviously.
That would be why, 4 days ago, I along with a load of other women of all ages, had to hear a small group of young men shouting "Fuck You" and other obscenities and about how we were past "it" after 30 at us while we were queuing to get into a conference. This went on for over an hour. It disrupted not just us but commuters coming out of the station and everyone else trying to walk along that pavement. We ignored them.
Yes - a lot of intolerance of bullying, other than by those doing the bullying when they think it perfectly ok, of course.
When did it become acceptable to should abuse and obscenities at women old enough to be your mother or grandmother going about their lawful business? We have not become intolerant of bullying and sexual misconduct. It still goes on and finds other ways of expressing itself, even as some congratulate themselves on opposing certain types and ignoring the rest.
These are the videos of the queue protest at the FiLiA conference (twitter, link) specified above. Weirdly I think there was a similar one last year, so I had to delete another because they were a year old. Due to time constraints they were the best I could get, so if anybody has other first-hand video sources please post.
Dare I say it is a positive change that now MPs quit rather than die in the job - and that the recall system is actually pretty good, since whilst you can be comdemned by fellow MPs for acting like a shit, you cannot (despite lies from a certain ex Prime Minister) be ousted by anyone but your electorate.
I was quite shocked by how old, and indeed feeble, Biden, looked on TV yesterday.
The stress of international crises must be seriously tough at his age.
It reinforces the questions about a second term - though at the same time he seems to respond to these crises remarkably well.
There was a piece on NY Times the other day arguing his vast experience of foreign policy issues over decades is now going to be a major bonus and override concerns about his age.
Whether ordinary US voters will see it that way is another matter.
It should, given the alternative hardly looks unfeeble on top of being pretty barmy in his foreign policy statements, but for some reason he doesn't get labelled as weak and confused sounding, despite being even more so on the latter.
Comments
Absolutely incredible that they have never had a UK top 3 single.
One of the most pernicious changes in the music industry in modern era is 360 deals. Back in the day, record company finds talent, signs talent to deal, record company gave an artist an advance to make a record, perhaps provided support for writing, then they would promote it, distribute it, and obviously take massive cut in order to recoup all the advance (and then some).
Now, they own everything the artist ever does, live, merch, image rights, etc etc etc. And in doing so controls everything about their music, the shows, etc. Their life is basically a tv show in which they have been cast to play the lead role. See all the ex-disney channel stars who have become the big pop stars, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus....
So the record company isn't just thinking about this kind of music is "hot" at the moment, lets find an artist who does this kind of music, they calculating all the avenues for revenue generation and finding somebody to fit that.
https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/iping/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eVH1Y15omgE <<—one of the most bonkers pieces of music ever played.
Edit - and incidently also seems to be a nice bloke with a fine line in self deprecation.
Looking, for example, at this poll on Israel, the Democratic Left are very much at odds with US public opinion.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/15/politics/cnn-poll-israel-hamas-war-americans/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Itinerary
The BBC published an article with the headline: 'Brussels shooting: Suspects at large after two Swedes killed in terror attack.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12639357/bbc-calls-brussels-shooting-terror-not-hamas.html
Whoever wrote the original headline will be having a fun meeting this morning...
A young friend of mine is working in a primary school in SW England - returning to education after a long break. She says the kids are the stupidest she has ever seen, and autism is almost the norm
It’s just one person’s view. But her shock is genuine and she’s not given to lying. It’s a concern coz these kids are the ones who went through Covid and lockdown as tiny infants. What did it do to them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWYDvB1BUpc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67125230
I am sure it is because he has written some choice words about government ministers and civil servants. But I find if he is forced to release these, I find that rather worrisome. Everybody should be entitled to write their private thoughts, particularly at such an incredibly stressful time, without worry that they might then be forced to reveal them to the word (all because really some nosey journalists want some clickbait stories).
It would make official weary about every writing anything down or revealing any thoughts ever.
@shashj
·
4h
“Now, for the first time in over four decades, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the entire armoured corps has been called up. This is a massive force … it is understood to include over 1,000 main battle tanks.”
I will argue all day that MES is more of a genius than Ed Sheeran, but even I will concede that Ed is the more talented musician.
*A quick scan at my top 20 most played on my ipod has the subject matter of my favourite songs as follows:
- not working
- fuck knows
- fuck knows
- wanting a girl as cool as Kim Deal
- the lifestyles of young urban Bohemian types
- a tramp getting killed in an earthquake
- solving problems
- best not to speculate
- the environment
- just a barrage of imagery, really
- romantic love, I suppose
- ditto
- ditto
- ditto
- Nothing at all
- Aliens
- Being obsessed with the Krays
- Samson and Delilah
- Nothing
- romantic love, again, I suppose.
Thanks for the interesting and concise header, Mike.
My comments are:
1 - That suggests that recall petitions are working rather more effectively than I expected at the time of introduction.
2 - The greater intolerance of misconduct is a positive, I think.
A careful balance is needed because potentially particular MPs or Ministers / Shadow Ministers could be targeted for false, historic or less serious allegations - suspension potentially stopping individual careers in their tracks.
Is the balance about right?
3 - Is there a shift from the earlier in a Parliament to later in a Parliament?
It might also replace musicians and pop stars themselves, with synthetic avatars in CGI videos, who never get old and never ravish underage fans
300,000 years of human creativity is coming to an end
In my line of work - both in the oil field and archaeology - I am expected to keep a diary and it is expected to be available to be studied by the client should they so wish. Indeed for the oil field work it remains the property of the client if they wish to claim it. .
"kept evening notes in the pandemic as part of a "brain dump" to protect his mental health. Sir Patrick's informal diaries - or evening notes"
So no they aren't part of his official duties and clearly no expectation that "work" (let alone so nosey journalists) should be able to read them.
As a parent: my God it was awful. With the exception of a brief window of hope in the summer, I genuinely wanted to kill myself every single day from about April-December 2020.
What a total mess, they should have got people from the AAIB and RAIB to lead, those who understand that the idea is to improve things for the future, rather than blame people for the past.
Got a groovy kind of Gove.
Then punk and new wave and indie happened, and suddenly a much wider range of people could release music. And then the internet happened, and it broadened again. So the really complex music made by the really talented musicians and songwriters now accounts for a rather smaller proportion of what is released.
There is almost certainly as much really complex music out there, if not more so. But there is much, much more at the simpler end of the spectrum, so the complex stuff gets less prominence.
After all, he's a former banker who had dropped of the American ratrace, probably the most frantic and soulless and obsessive ratrace in the world, and is now walking the globe and writing about it.
I bet he's happier now than he was before
(one of my favourite novels and writers btw)
If Hamas can import stuff at scale or have built up stockpiles they will win an urban war. If the blockade holds, Hamas didn't stockpile, and the IDF can stick to defined limited goals then Israel will win.
So the rules never change.
Absolute secrecy is only available inside your own head.
If you write something down you want no-one to see, then tell no-one at all ever ever, and keep it somewhere odd, (and never take a copy), and then they can't ask for it or find it
If necessary destroy before any legal or law like process starts.
Obviously you can't do this in various formal professional capacities, but it applies to anything personal and not legally required to be created.
The idea that everyone involved now has to turn over their phones, is novel.
The amount of quality music being produced is higher than ever. But it is increasingly dispersed across different artists, most of whom do not have mainstream appeal. They sell out academy sized concerts rather than stadiums.
Mainstream music I would agree is not as good as it once was. But it isn't difficult to find the quality, with all the quality and sophistication of the music of 50 years ago.
Yes - a lot of intolerance of bullying, other than by those doing the bullying when they think it perfectly ok, of course.
When did it become acceptable to should abuse and obscenities at women old enough to be your mother or grandmother going about their lawful business? We have not become intolerant of bullying and sexual misconduct. It still goes on and finds other ways of expressing itself, even as some congratulate themselves on opposing certain types and ignoring the rest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vziHUiws04U
https://www.tiktok.com/@scotnational/video/7289399513167564065
https://twitter.com/AlanJZycinski/status/1712734231040778710
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3forPVkcNA