Sea of Bees @ The Railway 16/11/12

Julie Baenziger - Sea of Bees.
Image Courtesy of Paul Bevan. Twitter: @paulbevan

Had my first chance to visit The Railway on Saturday, which, if you haven’t been, is an intimate venue near Winchester train station. The gig itself was in a backroom called The Barn, and I found it to be a pretty decent venue, great for seeing good bands close up, although, be careful of your attire as the heavy use of ultraviolet light can be very exposing.

Which brings me to the gig itself, starting at 8pm the first band (Electric Eden) had an awkward opening due to about 3 people having arrived at that point. As a three piece with a violinist, double bassist and a guitar player who also played the bass drum on a foot pedal, they were a novelty, and whilst their warm folky tunes, with which they opened, were pretty good, as they moved on it became apparent that they were trying to emulate Mumford and Sons (they even covered one of their songs), which is unfortunate, because Mumford and Sons are soulless, corporate wetbags and should never be emulated. The gig carried on in this lyrically cheesy sort of manner until the last song, which really took me by surprise; it was one of their own and with a quite comical (in a good way) reggae style breakdown, they brought back the glimpses of folky potential shown in the early stages of their set. Electric Eden finished on a high, showing potential, although, it most certainly hasn’t been realised yet. My recommendation: Don’t seek them out by any means, but don’t be sad if they show up on the set list either.

The next band to take the stage were a pretty plain band that were reminiscent of The Calling, that early noughties (awful word) pop rock band that did ‘Wherever you will go’. So if you’re a fan of generic early noughties pop rock, then they might have been the band for you, otherwise, a bit bland. My recommendation: If it’s cheap, and you have a soppy sort of taste in music from the early 2000’s then sure, why not!

The real surprise of the night was Barbarossa, setting up on stage with 3 keyboards and a midi table (from what I could see) with a drummer discreetly to the side, James Mathe a.k.a. Barbarossa took the now well populated crowd by storm. The talent shown in his playing of multiple instruments was obvious, and in a style that included minimal house beats, yet still retained an emotive quality that really connected with the audience, especially the track bloodlines, which brought a silence over the crowd in attendance, a noumenal moment if you will. I recommend this one to anyone who likes the likes of Thom Yorke or Bon Iver, with whom Barbarossa shares likenesses. A real gem live, the music doesn’t seem as good when researching his tracks online, which is not a dismantling of his music, but a testament to his superb live performance. My recommendation would be: If you get the chance, go and see Barbarossa. I’m sure he’ll be showing up in high places.

We then come to the headliners, I’d heard a couple of Sea of Bees songs a few years ago, wizbot being the track that stuck out at the time, but what greeted me was not the quiet solitary acoustic set that I had expected, but a far more polished and much more upbeat 4 piece Sea of Bees, which I suppose follows the same vein as their new album ‘Orangefarben’. They opened well, with Julie Baenziger’s wonderfully unique vocal style immediately showing why there is a fuss building up around their music. The crowd also immediately took to Baenziger’s warm and somewhat intoxicated banter, adding to the cosy experience. The real surprise for me was the energy with which the band performed, creating the first scenes of mass dancing that had occurred all night. The intriguingly uncommon sound that the Sea of Bees manages to create is one that is being increasingly acknowledged, and it’s unsurprising, their sound is fresh, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find them playing their quirky indie-folk at much bigger venues in the near future. My recommendation: Don’t even think about it, just do it, you will not regret it. Great fun.

A short description of 'market based economies' from a Marxist perspective.

Against market/competition/PROFIT driven society (capitalism):

My evaluation of Capitalist, market driven economy:

·         The competitive nature of capitalist society hinders technological progress, as the technology is not made to the best possible degree due to the competition between market leaders for profit, rather than collaboration for the improvement of society. E.g: no product is sold for it’s worth, rather for the maximum profit it can demand without protest. Due to this, Pharmaceutical corporations, rather than sharing their research with other companies, to faster achieve progress in development, will keep their knowledge in order to be the only supplier of a drug or treatment in the future so that they can maximise profits for themselves. Which surely is amoral, yet, in a market/competition based economy, it is the logical decision to restrict resources in order to increase their value, rather than try to attain abundance; which holds no promise of profit (e.g. If a gold mine produces more gold, they do not have more money, just the value of gold is decreased, so by restricting your supply of gold to others gold retains its value and maximum profit can be achieved) .

·         In this sense, corruption and amorality is an inherent part of the economy, as a moral and humanitarian company would be destroyed by those companies that make more profit.

·         This inherent corruption is in turn then applied to society; as due to the suppliers restricting supply to increase their products value, the consumer must compete with one another in order to attain resources for themselves. This is apparent in the ‘Alienation’ that arises between the Bourgeoisie (wealthy) and the proletariat (poor) and the unbalanced distribution of wealth in the population, as we are born into a society whereby hoarding as much one’s self as you can is seen as the only way to progress within society (e.g. the Bourgeoisie).

·         This leads to international scale amorality, with powers such as America etc. feeling the need to invade and dominate other nations for their resources, as competition for profit from resources dictates that nations, corporations and the populace must only share resources for unfair ‘maximum profit’ orientated costs.

·         This even spreads to humanitarian aid, as the investment in poorer countries (who are poor due to the inability of more PROFITABLE countries to fairly share resources) is only done in order to create a perpetual and ever growing debt to the more powerful country.

From this it is apparent that money IS debt and profit IS corruption (corruption being the exploitation of others for personal gain).

Thus, profit kills fair trade.

On Bureaucrasy - Weber.

Bureaucrasy is definable as social rule conducted from a desk through paperwork (or an electronic equivalent). However, it is not the same as democratic or aristocratic powers, as it is but a tool used by such aforementioned powers to rule the populace.

Bureaucrasy is sold as giving power to the prolatariat as it requires a large quantity of civil servants to fuel it's progress. Weber opposes this view, attacking these pretentions found in the Prussian bureaucrasy, stating that it was corrupted by aristocratic influence. This holds many parralels with the disollusion held by many today, with regards to the upper and upper-middle class dominance of high office within todays governments. This is easily identified when considering the attention given when a lower class individual attains a position of high office.

In the past, many attempts to retain this aristocratic power are apparent, with the Church in the middle ages being a prime example, enforcing celibacy upon its 'labourers' so as not to be challenged by patrimony of families.

From this, Weber acknowledges that reliable, and often blind submission to the official rules is an integral part of a bureaucrasy.

Modern bureaucrasy supplies the equipment required by its servants, maintaining control. Due to this, the bureaucrat does not own their job or their equipment, helping to maintain the singular power which the bureaucrasy serves.

Weber states that there are three types of legitimate authority:

Charismatic: A 'gifted' leader who is followed by those who are personally devoted to them.

Traditional: A leader who is followed, as everyone has always obeyed the person in the leader's position and no one thinks  to oppose their authority.

Rational: otherwise known as the 'rule of law'; it exists within communities in which there is a moral attititude of respect for the law. Or where the law appears to have been institued in a way that is considered legitimate.

Weber believed that bureaucrasy is within the framework of Rational authority, stating that it is the most efficient method of maintaining the rule of law.

Weber maintains that bureaucrasy is very efficient and that due to this, there is no system that can compte against it. However, due to the profit/goal orientated nature of bureaucratic rule the populace become wage slaves, who are forced to work boring and unfulfilling jobs. This is enforced by the legitimate fear that, if one was to take time to indulge in what would make them happy, then a more efficient and work-orientated person would claim their job, as their equipment and job are owned by the state.

The Innocence Project: CCRC decisions, was this decision correct?

Did the CCRC make the right decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal?

Mr. Warner was accused of murdering Mr. and Mrs. Pool on the night between the 21^st and 22^nd July 1989. The elderly couple were found dead in the upstairs of the property, with both bodies having received multiple stab wounds. Forensic evidence showed that Mr. Warner had forcibly entered or left the property through a downstairs dining room window, and there were fingerprints found around the draw in which the murder weapon was taken from. The police were alerted by a neighbour, Mr. Bell, who said that he heard a thud and a voice that sounded like a gasp.

Mr warner's appeal to the CCRC was based upon the new evidence, that there was no forensic evidence to show that Mr. Warner had been upstairs. Another defence proposed was that there was no blood found on Warner's clothes, or in the plumbing of his caravan. Along with these pieces of evidence, the defence suggested that there was a consistency between the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Pool's and the crimes perpetrated by the serial rapist known as 'the Vampire', who was at large at the time. A statement from a taxi driver stating that he picked up a bloodied man at around 11.20.

The CCRC decided to launch a section 19 inquiry, the enquiry found that the lack of forensic evidence to show that he went upstairs could be overturned should they allow the appeal on the basis that the scientist that analysed the DNA evidence said that Mr Warner's jumper showed evidence of being in contact with items recovered from upstairs, as well as an incomplete match with the other DNA evidence found upstairs that was not belonging to either of the Pools, to a degree where it was a 1 in 680 chance that the DNA could be someone unrelated to Mr. Warner. In light of this, it was believed that the central tenet of Mr. Warner's application for appeal was undermined.

The accusation included in the appeal, that the forensic evidence was perhaps contaminated, thus making the original trial 'unsafe', was dismissed by Dr. Hutchinson, who believed that there was no evidence to show that the blue pullover belonging to Mr. Warner could've been contaminated during the trial. This left Mr. Warner's appeal no grounds with which to challenge the integrity of the initial trial.

In light of this, the CCRC made the correct decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal, as his defence, no longer had a reason to claim the trial unsafe, which is required to overturn the verdict.

Law revision.

1. The supreme court is the highest court in the UK.

2. Directors of public prosecution hire the prosecutors in criminal cases.

3. The Crown Courts hear:
- indictable cases
- appeals
- tribunals

4. Magistrates Courts are responsible for:
- summary justice (non-indictable cases)
- either way cases
- committal hearings
- bail applications

5. Criminal offences: committed against the person or the state.

   - as opposed to -

Civil cases: a dispute between two parties.

6. Statute law: enacted by parliament (Common law is set by a judge).

7. Prejudice: judging someone before any evidence is heard. (not good).

Contempt: compromising the integrity of a case and/or denying someone a fair trial.

8. A case becomes legally active when 'it is likely there will be a trial' (This is a blurred definition, practically speaking it is active once someone is charged.)

9. After an arrest, only neutral facts can be reported about the case.

10. When a case is in Magistrates Court we can only report:
- Name age etc (Pos. I.D.)
- the Charge
- whether bail was requested and whether it was granted (but not why)
- Their plead.

The rest will be added later. Need to revise for Philosophy.

journalism now.. but before 'now' because it would be better for it to be proof read...

The Daily Telegraph.

The Daily Telegraph’s demographic is hardly a secret; old, wealthy, Conservatives and usually middle upper class at that. Floating around in the ABC1’s has no doubt shaped the way in which The Daily Telegraph is written, with today’s (17^th Nov) front pages demonstrating the difference between the paper and it’s competitors. Whilst other papers covered the ‘bank crisis’ as ‘Jobless generation’ (The Times) and ‘Migrants grab 12,000 jobs a month’ (Daily Express), The Daily Telegraph looks upon the story from a purely observational standpoint, speaking of ‘growth forecasts’ and other such things, not once mentioning the effects on today’s youth, or the effect of immigration. This is presumably due to the fact that the readership of The Daily Telegraph will not be feeling the pinch of ‘the cuts’, merely observing them from the lofty heights of grandeur and wealth.

Another big story, that has been hit hard by the tabloids today, is the ignorance of Sepp Blatter (the figurehead of FIFA), which brings me to my second point that defines The Daily Telegraph for me: the lack of a sport’s back page. Not only this, the well-hidden 20-page pull out even manages to place football on the 8^th page, after straight Rugby Union (and no mention of Rugby League), another stereotype of the privately educated upper middle classes. Once you have found the football pages, you will not find a league table or a record of results, but a brief summary of the financial and legal troubles found outside of the game. It would be unfair to suggest however that any of the sports covered were done from the perspective of a fan of the game, with not one result (apart from the odd gaze back into the ‘good old days’), or, in fact, any record of anyone actually playing the sports (the exeption being the praise of Federer’s victories at the age of 30 which is a cause of constant reference. But even then, the story is a biography rather than coverage of the sport.). To me it seems obvious that these stories have been chosen for their retrospective viewpoint or for their relevance to business.

The Telegraph tells the news in facts and figures that fit the thinking of hard-nosed businessmen and other such stereotypes of the demographic. This is done by expressing, mostly, the financial and business sides of a story for those who may not understand contemporary references to mass culture or want to read about the way in which people are effected by stories, instead looking at what the facts and figures can tell us, with a business-like efficiency that makes for good journalism but doesn’t offer anything for the less-educated to grasp onto. To summarise, The Daily Telegraph reports stories that are opposite to how their readership likes their rooms: hard and cold.

Retired mediocre boxer predicts football score - NO WAY!

Way to go BBC Sport! you've really gone all out on this one with a fantastic story! well done indeed!

bbcsport_ticker BBC Sport Breaking 

Football: Man City fan Ricky Hatton predicts his side will beat QPR 8-0 on Saturday bbc.in/tqLRhH

On to a winol..

Today I was put to the undesirable task of critiquing the latest instalment of WINOL (so please excuse any mean and unfair things I may say about it, it wasn't my choice).

Not to worry though, the bulletin as a whole was exquisite and I was only able to pick a few things out, mostly stylistic choices regarding sound and video editing (but as of yet I can't do that yet, so I am inferior in that respect anyway). So here is my brief and pretty nit-picky list that will probably lead me to be the victim of some form of hate-crime in the near future:

- About 5 minutes in was when I spotted the first flaw; just a small editing glitch which I think was mid speech.

- Then at around 9 minutes in there was a brief drop in volume during a pretty extended pause at the end of the sports segment that could perhaps have been cut out altogether.

- At the end of the ad for the other production the music could perhaps have been faded and an outro perhaps done just to soften the transition from the ad back to the presenter.

- Then, last but by no means least, the only legal point that I could really spot as potentially dangerous: the interview with the Southampton MP (whose name escapes me) where he was defaming Ed Miliband, who should probably be defamed in all honesty but legally was a bit iffy. Which was a tiny speck on what was otherwise very newsworthy journalism.

Other than this however, it was precise journalism to be proud of. A thumb upwardly inclined from me.


Also, if you have no idea about anything I just said, here is the WINOL youtube page with an extensive backlog of other admirable student journalism: http://www.youtube.com/user/Winchesterjournalism