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
material.
The title
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
home.
'Born into
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.
.yr alba ceòl
Wednesday 12 December 2012
Monday 12 November 2012
Paws, Waiters, Sex Hands & Dolfinz – Split 12” review
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”.
Artist websites:
Friday 22 June 2012
Media bias: fact or fiction?
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?
photo: NPR |
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.
Feature article
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)