I’ve been listening to some of the Miles Davis live concerts from 1973. I love the studio album Get Up With It but I found Agartha and Pangera live albums a noise. Mind you, I found the first FIllmore album a bit ragged. This time round, I find the music oddly compelling, even though it’s still a mess compared to the studio work.
Then I realised. It’s Miles doing Free Jazz. As he’d been doing since the mid-60’s.
Go back to the early Sixties, and there’s not a lot of difference between Miles In The Studio and Miles On The Stage. The live performances are generally a little faster and more intense, the studio performances are more polished and considered. Then came the Second Great Quintet: Shorter / Hancock / Williams / Carter. Shorter, Hancock and Williams could all play free jazz, and often did, on stage. Miles let them: that’s what he had hired them for. Carter was there to stop them going totally berserk.
The cliches of ‘free jazz’ include lots of over-blowing, honking, squeaking, rattling percussion, discords, noisy guitars, a very busy but inaudible bassist, no obvious tune nor chord structure, and clearly some rule that a hint of a tuneful phrase will be punished by loss of any and all grants the player may be receiving. And Lord alone there’s still enough of that stuff going around. This is a less noisy but just as directionless example:
However, ‘free jazz’ can also have a defined rhythm and a something like a tune. Here’s Coltrane doing it:
Coltrane went on from the sublime heights of the Village Vanguard sessions to the organised chaos of Ascension...
...and then even further out. Miles did not follow. That sort of stuff was not going to buy him any Ferraris. He recognised as well that he couldn’t go on doing If I Were A Bell live. I suspect Miles realised that the Vanguard sessions work because of the telepathic communication between Elvin Jones and John Coltrane. One reason Ascension does not work is that not even Elvin Jones can figure out what he should be doing. The rhythm section comes across as an afterthought.
What Miles realised was: get the drums right, discourage honking and over-blowing, the soloists can blow as free as they like, and it will make sense to a reasonably hip audience. So he hired three guys who could do free jazz and let them figure out how to do free jazz in the Miles Davis Quintet. One of those was the seventeen year-old Tony Williams: Miles knew that kid could drum up a storm in three different time signatures at once. He followed Williams with Jack de Johnette, who drummed up a rock-influenced storm, and he followed de Johnette with the powerhouse combination of Al Foster and James Mtume, who did heaven knows what, because it’s not jazz, funk or rock, but is exactly what Miles needed to make his then style of free jazz accessible to the majority of jazz fans.
Because what’s going on over that percussion is as free and weird as anything anyone else in free jazz ever did.
Thursday, 22 November 2018
Monday, 19 November 2018
Ben Judah's This Is London
I bought this book a while ago, but wasn’t in the mood to read what I thought it was until a couple of weeks ago. It isn’t a series of bleeding-heart tales of how bad life is for illegal immigrants to London. It is a kind of psycho-sociology. Judah says he wrote the book to understand this new London of the early 2010’s, full of Africans and Eastern Europeans, that has appeared in the last twenty years and that he doesn’t really understand.
Judah’s book avoids the bleeding heart. He lets his people speak, even when, like the rich kids, they are total jerks. He describes the quality of the light, the smells, the chicken shops, the smell, the damp, the bodies pressed together in the subways and the doss-houses. The description of the bus stop on the Old Kent Road at four in the morning, and the ride in to the City of London, is masterful. He shows us the strange London of the early 2010’s, that will be a distant memory by 2030 (“Daddy, were there really African witch-doctors in south London?”) because in the end, the best way to drive away the poor is to import the well-off, to gentrify, to build high-rise apartments in the Elephant and Castle. Then the doss-houses get converted to middle-class accommodation again. Look at what happened in Notting Hill, or Brooklyn today. And Judah sees that as well.
Invisible in his book are the middle-class immigrants, with their university degrees, knowledge-economy jobs, and reasonably stable family backgrounds, who are already integrated into the world-wide Westernised middle-class that exists in Egypt as much as Australia. This is a clue. It isn’t the foreign-ness of the people that strikes him, it’s the sheer poverty. Why would anyone come from Albania to some doss-house in East Zone Three?
Immigration is manifold. There is a constant, small flow of people from one country to another that has been going on forever: these are the hard-working, skilled, risk-takers of myth, the ‘Brain Drainers’ who went from the UK to the US in the 1960’s, the professionals who seem to happier in a different country than the one they were born and raised in, and in the 1980’s and 1990’s the children of the elites in politically unstable countries, sent to The USA or Europe for safety. To all intents and purposes they assimilate, even if they don’t eat British food and prefer to worship the Gods they brought with them. This is Good Immigration.
Then there are people who are imported to fill a specific need. The Irish who built the UK’s roads and railways in the nineteenth-century. The West Indians brought over on the SS Windrush to drive the buses and trains because London Transport would not or could not compete with the salaries being offered by the reviving post-war British manufacturing industry. The Poles who came over to fill the skilled-worker shortage caused by the abandonment of apprenticeship schemes in the 1970’s. And the nurses poached by agencies from every third-world country for an NHS that cannot or will not compete with the salaries that men and women who would have been nurses are now offered by banks and other service industries. This is Employer-Pull Migration: there are jobs waiting for the immigrants.
Then there is Push-Migration. The immigrants are more or less thrown out of their countries. Castro’s boat-lifts of the 1980’s and 1990’s are the paradigm: he emptied his jails and hospitals, added a few old people and children for press photos, and packed them off to Florida, seventy-five miles away. All those people who passed through Ellis Island? They were the weak men and obstreperous women who were going to pull the village or the small town down in the next bad winter after the last bad harvest: the people who could not (the men) or would not (the women) pull their weight when the going got tough. Don’t forget all those criminals the UK exported to Australia and to the US for about a hundred years. I’m sure other European countries did the same. Nobody now doubts that the million-strong Angela’s Army of 2016, mostly young men of military age, were the misfits, petty criminals, mentally-unstable and generally useless, carefully selected by the village elders, and shoved onto the NGO lorries, and told not to come back.
Pushed-Migrants are the unskilled, the weak, the mentally-ill, the criminal, the gullible and a horde of naive dreamers exploited by con-men telling them how easy it is to set up an International Business in London, where the money grows on trees. Polish builders brought over by dodgy agencies aside, these are the people Judah is writing about.
The third wave of immigration is driven by, populated by, and produces profits for, criminals, from drug-suppliers, through crooked landlords packing in four-on-the-floor and three-in-the-shed, to families who don’t pay their Filipina maid’s national insurance for years. (Judah blushingly notes that these are almost always Jewish employers: the French and the Germans and the British pay fairly and on time.) Criminal too are the agencies breaking UK employment law by only hiring Eastern Europeans, and only advertising the jobs in foreign countries, and then shielding employers from their full obligations to the workers with zero hours contracts and pseudo-self-employment. He sees it as exploitation, but actually it is crime.
The UN’s and EU’s ideal of Free Movement of People is not supposed to mean Free Movement for gangsters, drug barons, pimps and their prostitutes, and endless numbers of gulled low-skill workers. Yet it means that far, far more than it means Free Movement for decent middle-class graduates from Poland to get jobs as data analysts in market research firms in London. What we’ve learned is that the first people through newly-opened borders are not doctors and research physicists, but the advance guard of the gangs, looking for drug markets to take over, and flats for their prostitutes.
Judah notices how the poor immigrants bring their institutions, food, religions, social structures, crime, and beliefs with them. The woman who lives in Lithuania E16, shopping at a Lithuanian supermarket, speaking Lithuanian at home, watching Lithuanian television; the Africans with their witch-doctors and exorcisms. Everyone eating their home food and drinking their home beers - especially the Poles.
Which brings us to the idea of ‘integration’. We think that the integrated immigrant should ‘behave like us’. Who are the poor immigrants expected to behave like? They can’t afford the middle-class life, and who would want to behave like the English poor? Why watch awful British TV soap-operas when you can watch awful Lithuanian soap-operas whose characters you already know? In many cases, the immigrant poor sense they have better moral and social standards and practices than the English poor. The poor never live like the middle classes, as the middle classes never live like the rich. Who isn’t integrated with whom?
What does ‘integration’ mean in a post-modern economy and society? Immigrants must enter the country legally, else their first act on its land it to break its laws. Then they must do the same as any child born there: they must abide by its laws, earn a living, pay their due taxes, and behave in public as the locals do. How they behave in private is their business, as long as the taxpayer does not end up picking up the costs. These are the same requirements placed on the children of the citizens of that country. (The children must learn to speak and read the language, the adult immigrants should learn to speak and read ‘enough’. Some languages are almost deliberately withheld from non-natives, as the natives prefer to practice their English / French / other colonial language.) ‘Integration’ is not watching Eastenders instead of the Nigerian equivalent, it is letting daughters go to university, not using counterfeit train tickets to get to the building site, and not running a heroin distribution operation from the back of a dingy corner-shop, just as for the native children it is not disrupting classrooms and for the native businessmen it is not running Ponzi schemes. Native-born people can be as un-integrated as any Romanian sent by his debt collectors to beg on the streets of London.
I read the title of Judah’s book as This Is London (As Well). The Other London, where people have jobs, functional lives, friends, families, and don’t break the law. That London has no glamour, almost no piquancy, and little colour. After all, most of those people, on the trains into Waterloo and on the District Line, earn well into the top salary decile. And they have no secrets and no stories. At least, no stories that the reader will want to read.
Judah’s book avoids the bleeding heart. He lets his people speak, even when, like the rich kids, they are total jerks. He describes the quality of the light, the smells, the chicken shops, the smell, the damp, the bodies pressed together in the subways and the doss-houses. The description of the bus stop on the Old Kent Road at four in the morning, and the ride in to the City of London, is masterful. He shows us the strange London of the early 2010’s, that will be a distant memory by 2030 (“Daddy, were there really African witch-doctors in south London?”) because in the end, the best way to drive away the poor is to import the well-off, to gentrify, to build high-rise apartments in the Elephant and Castle. Then the doss-houses get converted to middle-class accommodation again. Look at what happened in Notting Hill, or Brooklyn today. And Judah sees that as well.
Invisible in his book are the middle-class immigrants, with their university degrees, knowledge-economy jobs, and reasonably stable family backgrounds, who are already integrated into the world-wide Westernised middle-class that exists in Egypt as much as Australia. This is a clue. It isn’t the foreign-ness of the people that strikes him, it’s the sheer poverty. Why would anyone come from Albania to some doss-house in East Zone Three?
Immigration is manifold. There is a constant, small flow of people from one country to another that has been going on forever: these are the hard-working, skilled, risk-takers of myth, the ‘Brain Drainers’ who went from the UK to the US in the 1960’s, the professionals who seem to happier in a different country than the one they were born and raised in, and in the 1980’s and 1990’s the children of the elites in politically unstable countries, sent to The USA or Europe for safety. To all intents and purposes they assimilate, even if they don’t eat British food and prefer to worship the Gods they brought with them. This is Good Immigration.
Then there are people who are imported to fill a specific need. The Irish who built the UK’s roads and railways in the nineteenth-century. The West Indians brought over on the SS Windrush to drive the buses and trains because London Transport would not or could not compete with the salaries being offered by the reviving post-war British manufacturing industry. The Poles who came over to fill the skilled-worker shortage caused by the abandonment of apprenticeship schemes in the 1970’s. And the nurses poached by agencies from every third-world country for an NHS that cannot or will not compete with the salaries that men and women who would have been nurses are now offered by banks and other service industries. This is Employer-Pull Migration: there are jobs waiting for the immigrants.
Then there is Push-Migration. The immigrants are more or less thrown out of their countries. Castro’s boat-lifts of the 1980’s and 1990’s are the paradigm: he emptied his jails and hospitals, added a few old people and children for press photos, and packed them off to Florida, seventy-five miles away. All those people who passed through Ellis Island? They were the weak men and obstreperous women who were going to pull the village or the small town down in the next bad winter after the last bad harvest: the people who could not (the men) or would not (the women) pull their weight when the going got tough. Don’t forget all those criminals the UK exported to Australia and to the US for about a hundred years. I’m sure other European countries did the same. Nobody now doubts that the million-strong Angela’s Army of 2016, mostly young men of military age, were the misfits, petty criminals, mentally-unstable and generally useless, carefully selected by the village elders, and shoved onto the NGO lorries, and told not to come back.
Pushed-Migrants are the unskilled, the weak, the mentally-ill, the criminal, the gullible and a horde of naive dreamers exploited by con-men telling them how easy it is to set up an International Business in London, where the money grows on trees. Polish builders brought over by dodgy agencies aside, these are the people Judah is writing about.
The third wave of immigration is driven by, populated by, and produces profits for, criminals, from drug-suppliers, through crooked landlords packing in four-on-the-floor and three-in-the-shed, to families who don’t pay their Filipina maid’s national insurance for years. (Judah blushingly notes that these are almost always Jewish employers: the French and the Germans and the British pay fairly and on time.) Criminal too are the agencies breaking UK employment law by only hiring Eastern Europeans, and only advertising the jobs in foreign countries, and then shielding employers from their full obligations to the workers with zero hours contracts and pseudo-self-employment. He sees it as exploitation, but actually it is crime.
The UN’s and EU’s ideal of Free Movement of People is not supposed to mean Free Movement for gangsters, drug barons, pimps and their prostitutes, and endless numbers of gulled low-skill workers. Yet it means that far, far more than it means Free Movement for decent middle-class graduates from Poland to get jobs as data analysts in market research firms in London. What we’ve learned is that the first people through newly-opened borders are not doctors and research physicists, but the advance guard of the gangs, looking for drug markets to take over, and flats for their prostitutes.
Judah notices how the poor immigrants bring their institutions, food, religions, social structures, crime, and beliefs with them. The woman who lives in Lithuania E16, shopping at a Lithuanian supermarket, speaking Lithuanian at home, watching Lithuanian television; the Africans with their witch-doctors and exorcisms. Everyone eating their home food and drinking their home beers - especially the Poles.
Which brings us to the idea of ‘integration’. We think that the integrated immigrant should ‘behave like us’. Who are the poor immigrants expected to behave like? They can’t afford the middle-class life, and who would want to behave like the English poor? Why watch awful British TV soap-operas when you can watch awful Lithuanian soap-operas whose characters you already know? In many cases, the immigrant poor sense they have better moral and social standards and practices than the English poor. The poor never live like the middle classes, as the middle classes never live like the rich. Who isn’t integrated with whom?
What does ‘integration’ mean in a post-modern economy and society? Immigrants must enter the country legally, else their first act on its land it to break its laws. Then they must do the same as any child born there: they must abide by its laws, earn a living, pay their due taxes, and behave in public as the locals do. How they behave in private is their business, as long as the taxpayer does not end up picking up the costs. These are the same requirements placed on the children of the citizens of that country. (The children must learn to speak and read the language, the adult immigrants should learn to speak and read ‘enough’. Some languages are almost deliberately withheld from non-natives, as the natives prefer to practice their English / French / other colonial language.) ‘Integration’ is not watching Eastenders instead of the Nigerian equivalent, it is letting daughters go to university, not using counterfeit train tickets to get to the building site, and not running a heroin distribution operation from the back of a dingy corner-shop, just as for the native children it is not disrupting classrooms and for the native businessmen it is not running Ponzi schemes. Native-born people can be as un-integrated as any Romanian sent by his debt collectors to beg on the streets of London.
I read the title of Judah’s book as This Is London (As Well). The Other London, where people have jobs, functional lives, friends, families, and don’t break the law. That London has no glamour, almost no piquancy, and little colour. After all, most of those people, on the trains into Waterloo and on the District Line, earn well into the top salary decile. And they have no secrets and no stories. At least, no stories that the reader will want to read.
Thursday, 15 November 2018
Two Photographs from the Barbican Highwalks
Why is this top picture boring?
While this one is pretty good?
It's something more than just the greater detail of the greenery. It's something about the geometry of it as well. But I can't explain what.
Answers please in the comments
Monday, 12 November 2018
October 2018 Review
I used up one of my many outstanding week’s leave, and did various bits of clearing up messes in the house, had a health check from the Gym’s GP, and settled into my new Wednesday evening routine with my commitment at the Soho meeting.
Wait. What was that again? Health check? You know, like blood panels, testosterone, body fat, medical once-over involving being poked and prodded, blood pressure and pulse, all that good stuff. It’s one of those things one should get if one has the money or the insurance coverage, and I wanted to be sure that there were no major changes in my body chemistry that might account for my recent feelings of blah. Turns out there isn’t, but I did get a whole bunch of blood test strips just to make sure that the reading I got that morning was anomalous.
(OK, since you ask, I have a pulse oximeter, a blood-sugar reader, and an electrical blood pressure reader. Any time I use them, I’m so damn healthy it’s not true.)
For no reason I could think of, I stopped taking the magnesium, vitamin D and multi-vitamins. I didn’t even think about it. The magnesium returned within the week. You don’t want to know the details. And since the days are getting shorter, I put the vitamin D back in. Because superstition. Haven’t noticed not taking the mutli-vitamins.
I read Brian Sewell’s Outsider II, the second volume of his autobiography; Terence Popp’s The Warrior’s Way and the Soldier’s Soul; Peter Robb’s A Death In Brazil; Media Lens’ Propaganda Blitz; tried Schonberg’s Harmonielehre and gave up; Virginie Despentes’ Pretty Things; finished William Cobbett’s Rural Rides, and also the Burkholder / Grout / Palisca History of Western Music.
My sight-reading has always been a little flakey, and one exercise I did with the History of Music was to read all the notes aloud in the examples they gave. It was hard work at the start - I had a real slippery spot with D-E-F at the bottom of the stave for a good few hundred pages - but it was worth it. Treble Clef only, of course. I’m not a Real Musician. (Real Musicians can sight read through all the changes of clef at the end of the prelude of Bach’s sixth cello suite, the one for a five-string cello.)
I saw Automatic at Sea, Cotton Pickin’ Chickenpickers, Landscape In The Mist, The Rover, all via MUBI, and all of S8 of House.
Sis and I had supper in Hammer and Tongs on Farringdon Road, which was pretty good, better than the frankly ordinary supper we had at the end of the month (timing) at Rules.
When I went back after the break, I went straight back to having a working-from-home Friday. The five-day-a-week commute thing was okay, but it makes the weekends feel very short and man-I-am-tired-at-the-end-of-it. (You have not heard the last of this.)
Wait. What was that again? Health check? You know, like blood panels, testosterone, body fat, medical once-over involving being poked and prodded, blood pressure and pulse, all that good stuff. It’s one of those things one should get if one has the money or the insurance coverage, and I wanted to be sure that there were no major changes in my body chemistry that might account for my recent feelings of blah. Turns out there isn’t, but I did get a whole bunch of blood test strips just to make sure that the reading I got that morning was anomalous.
(OK, since you ask, I have a pulse oximeter, a blood-sugar reader, and an electrical blood pressure reader. Any time I use them, I’m so damn healthy it’s not true.)
For no reason I could think of, I stopped taking the magnesium, vitamin D and multi-vitamins. I didn’t even think about it. The magnesium returned within the week. You don’t want to know the details. And since the days are getting shorter, I put the vitamin D back in. Because superstition. Haven’t noticed not taking the mutli-vitamins.
I read Brian Sewell’s Outsider II, the second volume of his autobiography; Terence Popp’s The Warrior’s Way and the Soldier’s Soul; Peter Robb’s A Death In Brazil; Media Lens’ Propaganda Blitz; tried Schonberg’s Harmonielehre and gave up; Virginie Despentes’ Pretty Things; finished William Cobbett’s Rural Rides, and also the Burkholder / Grout / Palisca History of Western Music.
(1,000+ pages of serious reading - with musical notation)
My sight-reading has always been a little flakey, and one exercise I did with the History of Music was to read all the notes aloud in the examples they gave. It was hard work at the start - I had a real slippery spot with D-E-F at the bottom of the stave for a good few hundred pages - but it was worth it. Treble Clef only, of course. I’m not a Real Musician. (Real Musicians can sight read through all the changes of clef at the end of the prelude of Bach’s sixth cello suite, the one for a five-string cello.)
I saw Automatic at Sea, Cotton Pickin’ Chickenpickers, Landscape In The Mist, The Rover, all via MUBI, and all of S8 of House.
Sis and I had supper in Hammer and Tongs on Farringdon Road, which was pretty good, better than the frankly ordinary supper we had at the end of the month (timing) at Rules.
When I went back after the break, I went straight back to having a working-from-home Friday. The five-day-a-week commute thing was okay, but it makes the weekends feel very short and man-I-am-tired-at-the-end-of-it. (You have not heard the last of this.)
Monday, 5 November 2018
Freedom of Internet Speech
No sooner does someone get banned from Twitter, You Tube, or Facebook, than their Bros are out talking about Freedom of Speech.
The political right of Freedom of Speech is the State’s promise not to punish anyone for expressing any opinion, no matter how wrong or offensive. All rights come with obligations, and for Freedom of Speech there are three. First, no inflammatory speech intended to lead to violence and uprising soon after the talking stops. Second, opinions must be expressed with an acceptable vocabulary - freedom of speech does not mean freedom of cussing. Third, restriction which amount to no treason. I can live with this as long as the definition of treason is very, very narrow, and does not amount to “offends or upsets some civil servant working for the security services”.
However, just because the State won’t prosecute you, doesn’t mean you might not get sacked from work for being nasty about your co-workers in public. The State promises to keep its nose out of your blog, it does not promise to keep your daughter’s classmates' parents’ noses out of your blog.
There’s an often-quoted sentiment to the effect that if you aren’t prepared to let other people say things you think are wrong or even despicable, then you don’t believe in freedom of speech. This is not about the political right, but about people’s social behaviour. The State can be generous with its freedom of speech because it knows your son’s classmates’ and their parents are a bunch of bigots who will put you out of your business, house, health and sanity if you step one millimetre off the straight and narrow of whichever Fundamentalist Christian / Muslim / California Left-Wing Billionaire / LBGQTHS orthodoxy you are supposed to be keeping to.
Social control is achieved with sheer brute force, in business by sacking, de-monetisation, vicious PR campaigns, and personally by exclusion, lies, threats and the threat of violence. That’s how society has always worked and we have the Social Media companies to thank for making it so clear. All conformity is enforced by the threat of violence: the State writes laws to make its use of violence acceptable, and your employers, family, acquaintances, co-workers and neighbours use moral posturing and self-rightousness to cover up their shaming, guilt-tripping, false allegations, lies, threats, and retaliations.
Should content creators expect the management of You Tube to behave any better than the people who used accusations of witch-craft to manipulate the rest of the village? No. Does that mean the management of You Tube should get away with it? No. Does it mean the management of You Tube will get away with it? Yes. Until they commit the cardinal sin of Losing Money and Losing the Audience.
However, virtuous bullshit is the best response to mendacious bullshit. So the Bros should be out yelling about Freedom of Speech. What they mean is social freedom, not legal or political freedom, but don’t let’s confuse the issue.
However. Be careful what you wish for. Break up the current monopolies and replace them with smaller companies staffed by middle-of-the-road managers overseen by equally middle-of-the-road government regulators, and in a few years the whole place will look like a 1950’s teenager’s magazine. We may be still be able to listen to Sandman and Terence Popp, but the algorithms that suggest one when you visit the other will have gone.
You see, SJW’s only care about their issues. If you’re off their radar, you’re copacetic, and a lot of people never get onto their radar. The middle-of-the-road types care about everything and it’s their job to generate ‘policies’ and ‘guidelines’ to remove or hide anything that they don’t want their daughter to see, or their husbands to hear.
So enjoy the Wild West of the Internet while it’s still with us.
The political right of Freedom of Speech is the State’s promise not to punish anyone for expressing any opinion, no matter how wrong or offensive. All rights come with obligations, and for Freedom of Speech there are three. First, no inflammatory speech intended to lead to violence and uprising soon after the talking stops. Second, opinions must be expressed with an acceptable vocabulary - freedom of speech does not mean freedom of cussing. Third, restriction which amount to no treason. I can live with this as long as the definition of treason is very, very narrow, and does not amount to “offends or upsets some civil servant working for the security services”.
However, just because the State won’t prosecute you, doesn’t mean you might not get sacked from work for being nasty about your co-workers in public. The State promises to keep its nose out of your blog, it does not promise to keep your daughter’s classmates' parents’ noses out of your blog.
There’s an often-quoted sentiment to the effect that if you aren’t prepared to let other people say things you think are wrong or even despicable, then you don’t believe in freedom of speech. This is not about the political right, but about people’s social behaviour. The State can be generous with its freedom of speech because it knows your son’s classmates’ and their parents are a bunch of bigots who will put you out of your business, house, health and sanity if you step one millimetre off the straight and narrow of whichever Fundamentalist Christian / Muslim / California Left-Wing Billionaire / LBGQTHS orthodoxy you are supposed to be keeping to.
Social control is achieved with sheer brute force, in business by sacking, de-monetisation, vicious PR campaigns, and personally by exclusion, lies, threats and the threat of violence. That’s how society has always worked and we have the Social Media companies to thank for making it so clear. All conformity is enforced by the threat of violence: the State writes laws to make its use of violence acceptable, and your employers, family, acquaintances, co-workers and neighbours use moral posturing and self-rightousness to cover up their shaming, guilt-tripping, false allegations, lies, threats, and retaliations.
Should content creators expect the management of You Tube to behave any better than the people who used accusations of witch-craft to manipulate the rest of the village? No. Does that mean the management of You Tube should get away with it? No. Does it mean the management of You Tube will get away with it? Yes. Until they commit the cardinal sin of Losing Money and Losing the Audience.
However, virtuous bullshit is the best response to mendacious bullshit. So the Bros should be out yelling about Freedom of Speech. What they mean is social freedom, not legal or political freedom, but don’t let’s confuse the issue.
However. Be careful what you wish for. Break up the current monopolies and replace them with smaller companies staffed by middle-of-the-road managers overseen by equally middle-of-the-road government regulators, and in a few years the whole place will look like a 1950’s teenager’s magazine. We may be still be able to listen to Sandman and Terence Popp, but the algorithms that suggest one when you visit the other will have gone.
You see, SJW’s only care about their issues. If you’re off their radar, you’re copacetic, and a lot of people never get onto their radar. The middle-of-the-road types care about everything and it’s their job to generate ‘policies’ and ‘guidelines’ to remove or hide anything that they don’t want their daughter to see, or their husbands to hear.
So enjoy the Wild West of the Internet while it’s still with us.
Thursday, 1 November 2018
Building on Bishopsgate
Four buildings - large ones, way large than the Gherkin or Tower 42 - under construction along Bishopsgate. What do the developers know about next year that we don't? Or what do they know about the ageing of the existing office stock in London?
Monday, 29 October 2018
How Are Things at Work? I'm So Glad You Asked
Recently I entered the late-twentieth century at work: I was gifted a Tableau licence. Tableau is a data visualisation tool, basically a slick pivot-table and pivot chart program: the graphics are sharp and there’s a wider range of calculations available than Excel offers. And it doesn’t re-format graphs every time you change the underlying pivot table - Excel users will understand how valuable that is. It’s fast and organises a heap of charts way better than scattering them around on a worksheet. It’s a wonderful tool for analysts who do what I do.
At the moment my supervisor is a mid-level manager, rather than the ‘Head of’ I’m used to reporting to. She has chronic but low-level insecurity about her continued employment, so she thinks she needs to look as if she’s doing lots of things and taking lots of initiatives. In vain would I tell her that as a Head Office staff officer, she’s as secure as a) her ability to be seen to be bringing in business, or b) her ability to handle crap for her supervisor. Busy doing stuff is a nice-to-have in the good times, a point she doesn’t understand, but her predecessor did.
And somehow Tableau wound up on her busy-doing-stuff list. Which is exactly where it doesn’t belong. Because in and of itself, it reaps not, neither does it sow. It’s a better basket for carrying the corn, or perhaps, a better pair of sandles for walking over the field.
In the part of the business where I work, they are interested in two things: a) meeting their numbers; b) handling the crap that gets sent down from above. When we’re below budget, everything is judged by one criteria alone: will it get the business back on track? (You may think that everyone is business thinks like that, but in service departments, they don’t, and in analytical and strategy departments they never think of these things.)
This leads to extreme blinkers: if it doesn’t help the managers get done what they need to get done to look good against their targets, they simply aren’t interested. Dealing with the alternative reality of the company’s monumental bureaucracy takes up all their brain space, and they have nothing left for the real world. Consequently they have no interest in background knowledge, context and the broader view.
And then along comes my supervisor, asking for the benefits of using a souped-up pivot table, where ‘benefits’ means ‘something that people would think is useful, when they don’t give a crap about anything except making excuses for last week’s sales, improving next week’s sales, and progressing their projects’.
Um. No. Not going to happen. The only benefit to them is that it makes ‘more compelling’ Powerpoints they send back up the line when the high-ups asksilly strategic questions. Which, since that ‘compelling’ makes it look like we all know what the heck we’re talking about, is a helpful contribution to everyone’s job-retention. But of course, this is the one benefit that cannot be said aloud.
So my supervisor is looking to me to provide reasons that don’t exist for something that shouldn’t be discussed at that level anyway. (Tableau isn’t that expensive. If I wanted £100,000 for some of the fancy SAS visualisation tools, sure, I’d want a case as well.) Does that sound like something I can do? Or she should be doing?
That’s one reason I feel uneasy. I’ve got a supervisor who can’t read the politics very well. Still, she goes into bat for me at appraisal time, so I have to keep her happy.
The other is the thought of having to deal with the bureaucracy, with the incomprehensible online forms, sequences of web pages, questions that are written in a secret code that looks like English but really isn’t, and that require far too much background reading to deal with. And which end by sending my request for approval to a chain of people I’ve never heard of. Nobody understands this stuff, because there’s nothing to understand: it’s a series of ritual incantations: chant the right words in the right sequence and you get what you want. Get anything out of place and nothing happens, or you get refused and have to chant it all over again. And when I give up and have some priest talk me through it, it always turns out that the system wasn’t really designed to cope with the type of request I’m making.
If I’m not looking at data about customers and processes, I don’t feel like I’m doing the job I’m supposed to do. The bureaucracy can eat up all the time I give and ask for more. That’s not what I want to do.
At the moment my supervisor is a mid-level manager, rather than the ‘Head of’ I’m used to reporting to. She has chronic but low-level insecurity about her continued employment, so she thinks she needs to look as if she’s doing lots of things and taking lots of initiatives. In vain would I tell her that as a Head Office staff officer, she’s as secure as a) her ability to be seen to be bringing in business, or b) her ability to handle crap for her supervisor. Busy doing stuff is a nice-to-have in the good times, a point she doesn’t understand, but her predecessor did.
And somehow Tableau wound up on her busy-doing-stuff list. Which is exactly where it doesn’t belong. Because in and of itself, it reaps not, neither does it sow. It’s a better basket for carrying the corn, or perhaps, a better pair of sandles for walking over the field.
In the part of the business where I work, they are interested in two things: a) meeting their numbers; b) handling the crap that gets sent down from above. When we’re below budget, everything is judged by one criteria alone: will it get the business back on track? (You may think that everyone is business thinks like that, but in service departments, they don’t, and in analytical and strategy departments they never think of these things.)
This leads to extreme blinkers: if it doesn’t help the managers get done what they need to get done to look good against their targets, they simply aren’t interested. Dealing with the alternative reality of the company’s monumental bureaucracy takes up all their brain space, and they have nothing left for the real world. Consequently they have no interest in background knowledge, context and the broader view.
And then along comes my supervisor, asking for the benefits of using a souped-up pivot table, where ‘benefits’ means ‘something that people would think is useful, when they don’t give a crap about anything except making excuses for last week’s sales, improving next week’s sales, and progressing their projects’.
Um. No. Not going to happen. The only benefit to them is that it makes ‘more compelling’ Powerpoints they send back up the line when the high-ups ask
So my supervisor is looking to me to provide reasons that don’t exist for something that shouldn’t be discussed at that level anyway. (Tableau isn’t that expensive. If I wanted £100,000 for some of the fancy SAS visualisation tools, sure, I’d want a case as well.) Does that sound like something I can do? Or she should be doing?
That’s one reason I feel uneasy. I’ve got a supervisor who can’t read the politics very well. Still, she goes into bat for me at appraisal time, so I have to keep her happy.
The other is the thought of having to deal with the bureaucracy, with the incomprehensible online forms, sequences of web pages, questions that are written in a secret code that looks like English but really isn’t, and that require far too much background reading to deal with. And which end by sending my request for approval to a chain of people I’ve never heard of. Nobody understands this stuff, because there’s nothing to understand: it’s a series of ritual incantations: chant the right words in the right sequence and you get what you want. Get anything out of place and nothing happens, or you get refused and have to chant it all over again. And when I give up and have some priest talk me through it, it always turns out that the system wasn’t really designed to cope with the type of request I’m making.
If I’m not looking at data about customers and processes, I don’t feel like I’m doing the job I’m supposed to do. The bureaucracy can eat up all the time I give and ask for more. That’s not what I want to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)