After a recent facebook discussion I decided to air my views via my fantastic blog. It is about the UK music scene, Plan B has recently shot to fame with his number one selling album ' The defemation of Strickland Banks', which contains two top 10 singles. Plan B has been making music for many years, I first heard about him 4 years ago when he came to my attention with such songs as 'sick 2 def' and 'mama (loves a crackhead)'. At the time he recieved very little media attention but was accurately described as Englands answer to Eminem with a daring and bizzare but clever lyrical style. He also plays guitar and sings something very unique. His debut album 'Who needs actions when you've got Words' reached number 30 in the charts. However due to the negative vibe surrounding around UK rap artists he did not recieve much media recognition despite being clearly very talented, admitadly some songs could not be played commercially due to the lyrical content such as ' No more eatin' and 'Charmaine' due to the subject matter.
The defemation of strickland banks is a far more comercial album. Plan can not be faulted for trying something new with his motown inspired album which doesn't really appeal to the 'pop' market. Furthermore he strayed away from the dance/techno scene that similar grime artists have gone down in persuit of mainstream money such as Wiley and Bashy. After all this rambling you must be thinking what my point is, well your eger mind is about to be satisfied, it is that clear talent should be noticed and promoted regardless of it's mainstream potential. Right of centre music like heavy rock and trance have their own comecially succesfull markets being apreciated for their talent, however UK urban artists do not get the positive promotion they deserve. Most of the music does involve talking about negative things such as drugs sex and violence, but most are only talking about everyday situations that they live in. Furthermore many artists put out positive messages or even promote themselves through music without talking about drugs and guns.
An example of artists that have been labelled 'sell outs' are Dizzee Rascal and Kano. Both raised in East London, had a raw gutter style which at times talked about drugs and guns but only describing the way in which they live their lives. Dizzee Rascal found fame with 'Boy in da corner' and followed success with 'Showtime', both musically creative albums. However his most recent release is not worth the plastic its made on, with an almost pop sound with no raw edge that the former dizzee rascal would of laughed at. I understand he is just trying to make money and can't talk about the hood and that type of subject as he does not live around that anymore, however his descent into senseless drivil such as 'bonkers' is beyond me and awful basic bassline with nonsense lyrics about being bonkers? An example of someone balancing the best of both worlds in Wiley who became a house hold name with ' wearing my rolex'. Acredited with being the creator of Grime he has made money through the trance/grime scene but also realesed two albums which appeal to the grime fans. He is a true hard worker who makes music he enjoys aswell as music that will be popular and make money, although he is often critiszied for not making the commercial switch along with dizzee rascal, but he has became succesfull eventually doing his own thing. A recent release that may have commercial success is 'midnight lover' that has an R n B theme that has brought through artists from around the country.
However times are a changing, strong lyrical artists who talk about real social situations such as Devlin have been getting recognition recently singing to XL recordings along with South London rapper Giggs. Hoepfully they will not follow the path dizzee rascal and Tinchy Stryder and they can utilise their raw talent and put it into a style that will appeal to all true fans aswell as having chart success.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Karl Marx and the communist Manifesto
The communist manifesto was seen as a solution to the class struggle, written by Karl Marx currently residing in London at the time, although originally from Prussia. However the manifestio was not just aimed at England but was seen as a solution for the whole world, and seen by Marx as the next step in developing the world. This was a theory very similar to Hegel, a school of thought that Marx himself and breaken away from with his idea of Communisim.
In theory communism works. Everyone is equal and the poor are not exploited in the way the buorgouise were exploiting the poletarians at the time of Marx writing his manifesto. It is very far left of the political sprectrem, extremely socialist and is aimed at the workers of the time working in factories and feilds being exploited. The manifesto was aimed to cause a rebellion from workers who were being unfairly treated. Marx wanted this too be a peaceful revolution tho with the government in charge making everyone fair.
The idea of communism meant that possesions were removed and everything was stated owned, such as hospitals,housing and businesses. In THEORY this meant that everyone was equal and this was seen a revolutionary idea. However theorists like Adam Smith would have disagreed with this due to the 'hidden hand of the market'. Communism means there is not competition in any area of business which can lead to lack of innovation, but this was seen as fairness and everyone would be on the same playing feild which of course gets you closer to perfection and God!
In theory communism works. Everyone is equal and the poor are not exploited in the way the buorgouise were exploiting the poletarians at the time of Marx writing his manifesto. It is very far left of the political sprectrem, extremely socialist and is aimed at the workers of the time working in factories and feilds being exploited. The manifesto was aimed to cause a rebellion from workers who were being unfairly treated. Marx wanted this too be a peaceful revolution tho with the government in charge making everyone fair.
The idea of communism meant that possesions were removed and everything was stated owned, such as hospitals,housing and businesses. In THEORY this meant that everyone was equal and this was seen a revolutionary idea. However theorists like Adam Smith would have disagreed with this due to the 'hidden hand of the market'. Communism means there is not competition in any area of business which can lead to lack of innovation, but this was seen as fairness and everyone would be on the same playing feild which of course gets you closer to perfection and God!
Where has the passion gone?
There seems to be a new craze sweeping the modern worlds football industry; Billionaire tycoons buying out English football clubs. The most recent club to become part of this fad, Manchester City. However can money really buy success? Take Queens Park Rangers for example, the former proclaimed ‘ richest football club in the world’. Although only taken over in the early stages of last season, a string of lack lusture performances and a fall to 10th in the Championship has made many Rangers fans question their title ambitions, not least the passion of the side. Manchester City seem to be following in the path of QPR scrapping a point away to hull is far below the expectations of the arab owners and indeed the City fans. The mentality of the uber-rich clubs seems to be very unconvincing, sure you can inject millions into a squad and offer weekly wages tripling that of what a fire fighter earns in a year, but where is the passion? As a QPR fan myself i look back with pride when we went away to west london rivals such as Brentford, battling hard to grab a point to instill fans with pride and passion. Now, what was once a fortress of bellowing Londoners urging their team on has become something reminiscent of the ‘highbury library’. There just simply isn’t much to cheer for, with most players earning enough to put big shiny alloys on their brand new jaguar, why should they care if the club finishes in the second half of the table? Too much money in the game has been a problem for at least 10 years, however with the recent influx of foreign ownership, no one seems to take pride in being a professional footballer. I would glady live off my current student budget for the rest of my life if it meant gracing the feild in the presence of the likes of Ronaldo and Torres. Footballers need to realise that many people’s livelyhoods rest on their team, and maybe just maybe they could spend a little bit more time on the training ground and a little less time thinking about what colour to paint their brand new Mercedes.
Kant,Hegel, Idealisim
Where to start, this weeks lecture is a tough subject to get your head around, idealism and imperatives. I shall endeavour to explain.
Kant talks about noumenal and phenomenal worlds in ‘Critique of pure reason’. This is the idea that there is a world perceived in the noumenal realm, it is said that if the object is not being perceived and viewed then it does not in fact exist. In other words it means that what we are seeing does not in reality exist as an object but only something created in your mind. Kant says that intuition makes perception, meaning our brain creates the world around us. Berkley says that objects flash in and out of existence as when we are not looking at them and acknowledging them they simply do not exist.
The Mind shaping what we see can be described as ‘Idealism’ also known as ‘German Idealism’. Idealists argue that good can only come if it can be legislated as universal law. In other words it would be good to have all the money in the world, but then no one else would have any money; therefore it could not be good. Empiricists will argue that the world exists as it is regardless of human perception. Kant says that everyone is born with a ‘moral law within’, he says that everyone knows right from wrong sort of like a moral code. In other words people who do things against the law for example know from they moral law within they are wrong.
Hegel was a devout Christian who believed in negation; that life was in fact changing all the time and that nothing ever exists! This in my opinion is a rather bizarre concept, as if nothing exists how does anything get done? Hegel would answer that everything is just changing constantly to get closer to paradise (essentially the garden of Eden as, in his opinion, everything has gone down-hill since the whole eating the apple incident). Hegel believes that historical events over time such as the Prussians eliminating alot of europeans was done as part of Gods work. A rather radical idea, i’m sure dictators and physcopaths have used to justify multiple murders and genocide in the past.
That concludes my rather weak attempt at trying to explain idealism and Noumenal and Phenomanal worlds. I hope this has been of some help to all you people that care out there!!!
Kant talks about noumenal and phenomenal worlds in ‘Critique of pure reason’. This is the idea that there is a world perceived in the noumenal realm, it is said that if the object is not being perceived and viewed then it does not in fact exist. In other words it means that what we are seeing does not in reality exist as an object but only something created in your mind. Kant says that intuition makes perception, meaning our brain creates the world around us. Berkley says that objects flash in and out of existence as when we are not looking at them and acknowledging them they simply do not exist.
The Mind shaping what we see can be described as ‘Idealism’ also known as ‘German Idealism’. Idealists argue that good can only come if it can be legislated as universal law. In other words it would be good to have all the money in the world, but then no one else would have any money; therefore it could not be good. Empiricists will argue that the world exists as it is regardless of human perception. Kant says that everyone is born with a ‘moral law within’, he says that everyone knows right from wrong sort of like a moral code. In other words people who do things against the law for example know from they moral law within they are wrong.
Hegel was a devout Christian who believed in negation; that life was in fact changing all the time and that nothing ever exists! This in my opinion is a rather bizarre concept, as if nothing exists how does anything get done? Hegel would answer that everything is just changing constantly to get closer to paradise (essentially the garden of Eden as, in his opinion, everything has gone down-hill since the whole eating the apple incident). Hegel believes that historical events over time such as the Prussians eliminating alot of europeans was done as part of Gods work. A rather radical idea, i’m sure dictators and physcopaths have used to justify multiple murders and genocide in the past.
That concludes my rather weak attempt at trying to explain idealism and Noumenal and Phenomanal worlds. I hope this has been of some help to all you people that care out there!!!
Liberty
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill was a very well educated man who took a strong belief in Utilitrarianism; which he described as ‘ The greatest good for the greatest number of people”. John Mill believed strongly in the freedom of speech, he thought that people’s individual opinions should never be dissmissed on the grounds that they do not fit the current mainstream idea. He thought that by alllowing people to challenge what is generally decided to be ”correct” then even if their opinion is wrong then it can only make the ”correct” idea stronger. He very much believed that people should be left to their own devices as long as they are not harming others; this can be applied to modern day society in that people have the right to choose their own sexuality etc. as long as no one is being harmed. This would of beeen very different in his time as being homosexual was outlawed. However he felt the state should get involved when it came to educating children as he thought it should be compulsory for children to be educated. He advocated womens rights saying that if women were so incapable of doing things, why do we need so many laws to stop them. Some people argue his utilitarianism ways were flawed as utilitarianism removes pain for pleasure, however some people exercise (go through pain) to feel good at the end which contradicts that way of thinking.
John Stuart Mills was a promoter of civil liberties. In John Stuart Mills essay on Liberty when talking about having a leader of people with power he says ; But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws. He shows here that although he believes in having elite leader(s) people should still be weary and limit the amount of power the person has giving the community liberty.
John Wilkes
By his own admission John Wilkes was not an attractive man, but he claimed he could talk the attraction away from his own face. John Wilkes was no stranger to trouble and often found himself in jail; this could be attributed to the ” Hellfire club” that he was a part of. This ‘gang’ consisted of elite members many of whom held a place in parliament including John Wilkes himself. The King of the time George III had appointed a Scot as Prime Minister who set up a newspaper called ‘ The Briton’ which was used as a propaganda machine. Wilkes did not approve of the appointment of a Scottish Prime Minister and so released ‘ The North Briton’ which spoke very crudely and unfavourably of the new PM. King George eventually released a general warrant for the publisher of the newspaper as he could not prove that Wilkes was publishing the paper. Subsequently Wilkes sued the government for false imprisonment and invasion of privacy and won which lead the way for indiviual rights in these sorts of cases. He was eventually expelled from the House of Commons and charged with Blasphemous Libel; he fled to France for four years and was put in jail on his return. He was then voted back into Parliament from Jail however the people in power did not see him fit to serve, however in the futre Wilkes went on to become Mayor of London. John Wilkes made a breakthrough in Journalistic reporting when reporting a discussion in Parliament which he published in the City of London, protected by their law he was not arrested by the people of Westminster and was the first to bring Parliament discussions to the masses seen as a massive breakthrough in politics.
Mary Wollstonecraft
Mary Wollstonecraft is considered by some to be the equivalent of a modern day feminist, however many would also disagree due to her somewhat fruitful and extravagant relationships with men. People would argue that she can’t be held in high regard as an advocate for women’s rights as she had affairs with married men and even attempted suicide when separated from another man.
In the book ‘A vindication of the rights of women’ she says;
I will take for granted, she was not created merely to be the solace of man, and the sexual should not destroy the human character.
This quote is an example of how Mary Wollstonecraft was more trying to change the view of the way in which women are viewed in a social context rather than pushing for women’s rights. She says that women should not be labelled as sexual objects but as human beings; the same as men.
Mary often talks about lack of women’s education and thinks this should be a fundamental right that women should be educated in the same way as men;
‘if woman be allowed to have an immortal soul, she must have, as the employment of life, an understanding to improve.’
This shows that Mary thinks a lot like Locke in respect to the mind being a blank canvas that can learn. Mary is saying that women can learn from life and will be able to improve in the same way as men can with an education.
In the book ‘A vindication of the rights of women’ she says;
I will take for granted, she was not created merely to be the solace of man, and the sexual should not destroy the human character.
This quote is an example of how Mary Wollstonecraft was more trying to change the view of the way in which women are viewed in a social context rather than pushing for women’s rights. She says that women should not be labelled as sexual objects but as human beings; the same as men.
Mary often talks about lack of women’s education and thinks this should be a fundamental right that women should be educated in the same way as men;
‘if woman be allowed to have an immortal soul, she must have, as the employment of life, an understanding to improve.’
This shows that Mary thinks a lot like Locke in respect to the mind being a blank canvas that can learn. Mary is saying that women can learn from life and will be able to improve in the same way as men can with an education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)