Take a pinch of 90s wistfulness, a spattering of hooky guitar riffs, a gentle dose of shoegaze and a healthy dollop of scuzz, and you have yourself the tantalising sophomore album of Glaswegian dynamos St Deluxe - ‘Born into Flame’.
In the two years since their
initial introduction into the public consciousness, St Deluxe have exploded
onto the scene with rip-roaring live performances heavy enough to turn your
hair grey. Their self-titled debut album found them refining their indulgent
brand of scuzz-rock, which was already hot on the tongues of well-known aficionados
such as Alan McGee and Stuart Braithwaite. St Deluxe’s latest offering is a
triumphant celebration of all their efforts to date, which has seen them evolve
into unbridled commanders of fuzz laden power-pop.
'Born into Flame’ delivers much of
what fans have come to expect from these boys, who above all certainly know how
to write a blistering two-minute tune. An extra injection of raw, visceral energy
however, is what separates this from St Deluxe circa 2010. Jamie Cameron’s
primitive, guttural howl battles the feedback-heavy sound of Martin Kirwan’s
Fender Jaguar with animalistic intensity, yet the lazy, fluid manner in which
the 11 tracks tumble over each other gives this album a distinctly nostalgic touch.
From the vehement caterwauling of Your Blood to the plaintive rhythm of I Know
How You Feel, St Deluxe are here to fill the void in grunge music that has been
idling since the early 90s.
With guitar work that bears more
than a fleeting resemblance to that of scuzz-rock messiah J Mascis’, talk of St
Deluxe being akin to a Scottish Dinosaur Jr. is not unwarranted. But the
intrepid four-piece has carved its own niche in this particular scene, as this
latest album lays testament to.
The opening track is a re-recorded
version of old single After the Fire, which has been honed to meticulous perfection.
Cameron’s signature nasal vocals are stronger, and the accompanying
instruments, more streamlined and assertive. The result is so good that it
actually makes this a stand-out track on the album, despite it not being new
track/first single follows up in much the same vein – incendiary fret-mangling
quilted behind a wave of fuggy noise-rock staccato. There is a renewed sense of
urgency in many of these latest tracks; everything about the band feels like
it’s been turned up a notch since their debut – if there were any doubts as to what
heights St Deluxe intend to reach in the future, this album surely slams it
Flame’ demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that St Deluxe are capable of
cooking up a storm in the recording studio. The new sound is a more distilled,
mature flavour than the Deluxe of old, but every bit as delectable as it was in
the beginning. These master craftsmen are flying high and show no signs of
slowing down – long may they continue.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Song, by Toad Records has delivered a number of euphonious treats in the past, but none quite so explosive and volatile as this latest split 12” featuring Paws, Waiters, Sex Hands and Dolfinz, who have come together to create a record forlornly redolent of a bygone era.
Recorded in the creaky depths of Toad Hall (Matthew Young’s living room), each band contributed their own idiosyncratic touch to a record that eddies you back to the early 90s the moment you press ‘play’.
The opening track comes from Sex Hands - an intrepid quartet from Manchester - who define themselves with a combination of raucous lo-fi and, bizarrely, ‘Friends’-related lyrics. Of the three tracks they contributed, ‘Chandler in a Box’ provides a perfect example of Sex Hands at their catchiest, with Pavement-esque guitar jangles permeating the crunch of the drum, all the while recounting the details of that Friends episode where Chandler lives in a box to prove to Joey how much he means to him. Ahh, nostalgia…
Up next are Glasgow’s ‘haribo-thrash’ sweethearts, Paws. These three lads have found immense success touting their saccharine, melodic charm infused with thundering veloce rhythmic guitar, which can be heard in all it’s glory in their acclaimed debut album ‘Cokefloat!’ released earlier this year. For this record it’s much of the same: raw, chaotic dynamism that’s served them so well, with four blisteringly energised tracks that deliver a powerful level of vivacity to this split 12”.
The second Mancunian outfit, Waiters, is shrouded in a foggy veil of obscurity to anyone outwith their own little coterie of admirers – but what they lack in recognition, they make up for in heart. They’ve been described by ‘Vice’ as “My Bloody Valentine and The Velvet Underground all fucking eachother”, and to a point, that tenderly eloquent portrayal is bang on. Their inspirations are very obviously drawn from the same stone as their fellow contributors, but Waiters’ wistful droning provides a more melancholic backdrop to a genuinely affecting record, and unearths the hidden layers many of these blitzkrieg anthems have under the surface.
Rounding off the session is Stonehaven-based Dolfinz, who come into the fray brandishing slapdash, scuzz-laden guitars and writhing, muscular drumbeats that create a deliciously modern sounding alt vibe. They’ve siphoned off just enough influence from Wavves and Ty Seagall to keep fans of their ilk happy, as well as maintaining their own identity. As far as contemporary revivalist fuzz-pop bands go, these guys are flying higher than Felix ‘Bumgardener’ on his date with the stars.
The amalgamation of these four bands enshrined together in music history is very pertinent indeed. Both their hearts and their instruments speak to a period lost for almost 20 years, solidified in their frozen state, protected from the passage of time and to that sentiment, this record is testament. To seven billion people the year is 2012, but to these guys – it’s still 1991.
As an aside I feel it’s important to mention that the cover art pays homage to old 60s jazz records – a symbolic reference to the days when it was second nature to polish off the old trumpet and bristle sticks and groove your way through a six-track record like it was nothing. It’s an age Mr. Toad thinks of fondly, and made music feel, in his words, “more like a living thing, rather than a museum piece”.
Friday, 22 June 2012
American mass media is under constant bombardment for its "liberal agenda". But how much of it is real, and how much is just smoke and mirrors? Fraser Doig investigates
The Republican Party finally has its ‘presumed’ presidential candidate. And Mitt Romney, who’s spent almost an entire year on the road promoting his campaign, only has the voters to thank. But wait, does he? With public outcry in the States over alleged media bias during the 2012 election campaign, did he win fairly? Or did he get by with a little help from his ‘friends’?
Governor Romney’s roots are in venture capitalism. His private equity firm Bain Capital has made him $250 million. It also claims co-ownership over Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner in the United States. It plays host to a number of politically conservative radio programmes such as the Rush Limbaugh Show, the Glenn Beck Program, the Sean Hannity Show, and Fox News Radio. His business also shares ownership of MSNBC’s parent company The Weather Channel. With this kind of power in his back pocket, you could be forgiven if you think that the odds are slightly stacked in his favour.
The notion that the press has abandoned its duty to act as ‘the fourth estate’ – a medium in which the general public is informed of the facts from a fair and balanced perspective – has tainted the journalistic profession since its conception. Historians have found that as far back as the 18th Century, publishers often served the interests of powerful social groups, and throughout the ages, the call for an unbiased media has been growing in intensity, particularly with our American neighbours.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution proclaims that all Americans, including the press have the right to freedom of speech. This is their constitutional right and, thus, cannot be taken away by any law made by Congress. Now of course, this right is imperative to the principles of democracy. In the words of the late, great Walter Cronkite, “A democracy ceases to be a democracy if its citizens do not participate in its governance.” But be warned – the act of feverishly flapping your gums with gung-ho enthusiasm can be a dangerous exploit.
To counter-balance the significant liberties the Constitution endows upon a potentially partisan media, the Society of Professional Journalists was established in 1909 by scholars from DePauw University, Indiana, with the sole intention to “promote and defend the First Amendment, encourage high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism, and promote and support diversity in journalism”. Their ‘Code of Ethics’ highlights virtues such as supporting the open exchange of views, even if you don’t agree with them, distinguishing between advocacy and journalism, and never allowing deliberate distortion of the truth. Although these are only voluntary guidelines, they are embraced by thousands of journalists throughout the United States, and there is expectancy for all journalists to abide by these ‘unofficial’ rules. But are they?
Not according to Bruce Ramsey of The Seattle Times, who believes that a biased media is inescapable.
“The profession as a whole can’t avoid it. Journalists have political opinions by the time they are at university, before they become journalists. The much-spoken-of liberal bias in the media derives from the longtime fact that most journalists in the mainstream media have political opinions that are somewhat to the left of the general public.”
A social scientific study into the ideological commitments of 238 journalists from America’s most influential news organisations concurs with this. The study titled ‘The Media Elite’, found that top journalists from ABC, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post and other significant news outlets were predominantly Democrats, with 54 per cent of them describing their political leanings as left of center. 29 per cent professed that they were “middle of the road” and only 17 per cent claimed they were right of center. It concluded that coverage of controversial topics such as abortion and gay rights reflected the attitudes of the journalist reporting it, and the presence of political liberals in the newsroom pushed coverage in a liberal direction.
This “liberal agenda” that is so often used as ammunition by Republicans was a burning issue during the 2008 presidential election, when Republican candidate Senator John McCain chose Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Her frequent on-air gaffes and traditionally conservative views served as ideal fodder for the so-called liberal media, which routinely chose to publish anti-Palin stories over positive ones. After her personal life was unearthed, the writing was on the wall. They slated her to such an extent that the original story of her becoming McCain’s running mate was lost in the throng of “Palinisms”, and the Republican Party were left with egg all over their face.
Was this fair? Depends on whom you ask. Republicans were furious with the media for their vilification of Sarah Palin, claiming that it was unjustified and inappropriate. Many liberals didn’t even try to deny it, with leading CNN news anchor Kathleen Parker admitting she “led” the character assassination of Palin, declaring that she was “out of her league”. Not quite “supporting the open exchange of views” now, is it?
One of the most powerful weapons in a journalist’s arsenal is the language they use. Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting – a nonprofit watchdog group dedicated to promoting transparency in American elections, states that primary elections in the States, specifically those held in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, are held for the sole purpose of “culling down the field”.
“If a candidate “exceeds expectations” built by TV punditry, three things happen: TV pundits start the drumbeat, building public expectations about “inevitability” of the candidate who did “better than expected”. Donor money reroutes itself, pouring dollars into the newly inevitable candidate. Media then reports on the candidate’s prowess in fund raising, citing this newly found skill as reason to believe the candidate is even more inevitable.”
In the event of a candidate performing poorly in the primaries, Harris paints a very different picture of the media.
“If they receive fewer votes than “expected”, the media speculates repetitively on when they will drop out, funds dry up, the media cites weaker donations as evidence that the candidate cannot win, and the party begins pushing the candidate to get out of the way.”
This type of partisan reporting has been accepted as a necessity to serve the purpose of weeding out the less serious candidates and leaving a prime crop of “front runners”. But when leading candidates are being ostracised by the media, that’s when it starts to get messy.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul kick-started his presidential campaign in early 2011 with a string of landslide victories that went almost totally unreported by the media. Later on at the Ames straw poll, some channels flat out ignored his impressive second place result, and he was declared a “loser” by The Washington Times, which then went on to say Rick Santorum, with 3,014 votes less than Paul, was a “winner”. In fact, on the rare occasion Dr. Paul was brought up by political commentators, it was usually to condescend and ridicule him. For an ideologically consistent 12-term congressman, many were pondering the question – why?
The fact that Dr. Paul wasn’t afraid to voice his criticism of the Federal Reserve and America’s foreign wars placed him firmly outside of the typical Republican’s firmly held beliefs. He was considered as radical and unpatriotic and this led to a stonewalling of Ron Paul coverage. His supporters were emphatic with rage and screamed “CONSPIRACY!” at the top of their lungs, but were only met with cold, complacent denial from the media. The general consensus from the majority of news stations was that the accusations of bias were blown way out of proportion, and lack of coverage was purely down to the fact that “crazy uncle Ron” was unelectable.
Not everybody buys into the “bias media” dogma quite like Ron Paul supporters do though; Elizabeth Skewes, Colorado University lecturer and author of ‘Message Control: How News is Made on the Presidential Campaign Trail’ finds that there’s a lot less to worry about than people make out.
“In elite newspapers and stations like CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS the charge of bias is largely faulty. These organisations, I believe, try to adhere to a standard of balance and neutrality.”
Regardless of the ethical standards of journalism, there’s no denying that people love a good scrap. Ken Silverstein - Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine and self-professed “gad-fly” of the newspaper industry - is adamant that the true spirit of journalism cannot live without the presence of passionate individuals who relay their opinions as fervently as possible.
“”Balanced” coverage that plagues American journalism leads to utterly spineless reporting with no edge. When it comes time to write, we are expected to turn our brains off and repeat the spin from both sides. God forbid we should attempt to fairly assess what we see with our own eyes.”
Looking objectively, the media bias in the United States is undeniably rife, and spells danger for the forthcoming presidential election. With the country in economic turmoil, and the possibility of a new man at the helm, it is of vital importance that the public is made aware of the facts without the added spin, and there is freedom to share opinions without the fear of incurring the wrath of the media elites. Alas, this is an unlikely scenario. The onus is on the American people alone to educate themselves so that they can make an independent decision, before the media makes it for them.
Is it as bad in the UK?
The ubiquity of media bias in the United States is largely apparent, but what about us?
It is commonly known that the British press has ties with political figures who use newspapers to generate public appeal. The press shows loyalty by printing favourable stories about their preferred party, sometimes obtained through the party’s “spin doctor”, which has a significant influence on the public’s perception of them. On the other hand, it is less familiar in televised news. A survey conducted by themediablog.co.uk asked members of the public where they thought leading British news channel’s allegiances lie. It found out that nearly two-thirds of respondents thought Sky News displays a clear pro-Conservative bias, with no hint of support for Labour. Conservative came up trumps with ITV News too, with 29 per cent of respondents believing they show a pro-Conservative bias. Channel 4 is believed to be the most neutral, with 48 per cent of respondents saying the channel displays no clear bias and 27 per cent saying they are unsure. The BBC is also perceived to be largely unbiased, with 44 per cent of respondents seeing no overall bias.
Example of a feature article on the homeless in Scotland
The plight of the homeless in Scotland has taken a U-turn in recent years, thanks to the efforts of charities like Shelter, whose support for the homeless by raising funds and lobbying the government has proved invaluable. Documented figures have shown that cases of people living rough on the streets is down by 20% from two years ago, the lowest number in a decade. But the general public seems to remain rather malcontented by the presence of these jaded vagabonds littering the streets of Scotland. Many people have no real knowledge of the circumstances that brought several of these individuals to the desperate situations they are in, so what really causes the homeless to become homeless?
The most common factor for a person being rendered homeless is the breakdown of a relationship, such as a divorce, where the legal bills can reach thousands of pounds. The weight of stress a divorce brings can leave a person crippled emotionally as well as financially. Many people have watched their lives turn to tatters as they find their finances being siphoned off by lawyer’s fees and eventually left desolate as their family falls apart. It’s a difficult thing to recover from, as Tony Rodgers, 36 found out when he divorced from his wife four years ago and is now sleeping in an Edinburgh graveyard.
|photo: Joey Lawrence|
“When I lost that case I crumbled. I couldn’t see a way back after that. I just resigned myself to the gutter.”
Tony is just part of Edinburgh’s despondent crowd of homeless people who feel as though many people carry a misconception about the homeless, which makes their position even harder.
“Fair enough, there are some people out there who have gotten themselves into this mess, whether it’s through drugs or crime or what have you, but you’d be surprised at how many of those scabby, grotty little specimens you see dotted about the city’s pavements used to be just like you only a few years ago. Just be grateful that fortune has fared you a little better than it has me.”
Sometimes the death of a relative or carer can lead to homelessness; such was the case with Brian Johnston, 33 who lived with his adopted parents until they both died suddenly.
“I was left with no-one… They didn’t have very much money and the council took the house. I’ve been sleeping in this stairwell for the past five years.
“I’m stuck in a vicious circle - I don’t have any money to find a place to live, and nowhere will hire me because I’m homeless; I rely on volunteers from the church to feed me and clothe me which I am grateful for, but to be honest I don’t have many hopes for the future.”
Becoming homeless after returning from the armed forces, prison, or a prolonged stay in hospital is the fourth most common reason for involuntary homelessness. With regards to ex-servicemen, their treatment at the hands of local authorities seems particularly harsh; Whitehall guidance states "serving members of the armed forces and other members who live with them do not establish a local connection with a district by virtue of serving, or having served, there while in the forces".
A Liberal Democrat defence spokesman spoke about this issue in 2007, claiming that "Housing can be a real problem for those leaving the armed forces, if they have been posted frequently, they may have few local links. In any case, high house prices and long local authority waiting lists for housing give them few options."
The reality for many of these former soldiers is that they have great difficulty adjusting to normal life after serving in the military for so long; several of them suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which leads them to try and subjugate their demons through alcohol.
The most disconcerting of reasons for homelessness by far is when it is motivated through violence in the household.
According to a Scottish Government report published in 2008-09 on domestic abuse and homelessness, there were over 6,000 homelessness applications made due to violent or abusive behaviour during this period. This is especially prevalent in youth homelessness; young adults who suffer at the hands of abusive parents will often flee, preferring to subject themselves to a life of poverty rather than return home.
The number of women forced from their homes as a result of domestic abuse is also particularly high – approximately 13,500 a year for the whole of the UK. So what is being done to tackle this issue? Victims who have been driven from their home because of abuse are recommended to contact their local council for help. But in a statement made by Scottish Women’s Aid, the standard of assistance these women are being treated to would appear to be less than adequate.
“The treatment the women received from local authorities was on the whole unsympathetic and in some cases callous. This was compounded by the quality of the accommodation offers the women received, which was usually in the most unpopular and difficult-to-let neighbourhoods.
|photo: Joey Lawrence|
“It is almost as if the women were being further punished for being abused by having to experience a significant deterioration in their residential quality of life.”
For those living rough on the street, life is a constant battle to stay alive, and their living conditions are not made any easier when they are exposed to the constant threat of being beaten to death by groups of sociopathic youths.
This twisted hate crime is more common in the US than it is here, but it’s not unheard of, and the simple fact that such brutal attacks are being carried out at all is unfathomable.
In a report released in 2010 from the National Coalition for the Homeless, it is found that over the past 11 years, nearly one in 4 attacks on homeless people have been fatal in the US. Some of the headlines include ‘Homeless Man Beaten to Death with a Rock’ and ‘Hatchet Wielding Youth Attacks Homeless’.
So the next time you take a stroll through the park and spot a disheveled looking individual curled up on a bench, don’t turn your nose up at them and keep walking, instead take the time to think about why they are there, and perhaps you might just be compelled to buy them a pasty and wish them well.