An unAustralian Confession

I have a confession – one that is probably enough to have me branded un-Australian.

I do not like the song Throw Your Arms Around Me.

I quite like Mark Seymour as a songwriter and I have nothing against Hunters and Collectors these days. I say “these days” because I used to not like them. My reason for not liking them was the same reason I didn’t like Midnight Oil – it was more to do with their meathead fans than the band. And Mark Seymour’s vocal style made it very easy and tempting for those meatheads to get in your face at the Blue Light Disco (or even in the schoolyard, apropos of nothing) and bellow
Yeew don’t make me feeeel, like I’m a womananymooooooore!
That, and bogans at gigs yelling out for HUNNAAAHS, regardless of whether it was a local cover band or well-established original artists like Nick Barker or Frente, was enough to put me off them. I have since learnt to enjoy them, but I still don’t like Throw Your Arms Around Me.

Obviously I’m in the minority. The song has been covered by everyone from Kate Cebrano to Pearl Jam. Crowded House have always made it a regular item in their live sets and there can be few greater compliments to a song than having a songwriter the calibre of Neil Finn wanting to sing it. But I still don’t like it.

It’s not just that I don’t like it, I am disturbed by it. Let’s look at the lyrics,

I will come for you at night time
I will raise you from your sleep
I will kiss you in four places
I'll go running along your street

Okay, that’s pretty standard stuff for some confused, late-teen romance, but it’s the next stanza where things get creepy:

I will squeeze the life out of you
You will make me laugh and make me cry
We will never forget it
You will make me call your name and
I'll shout it to the blue summer sky

“I will squeeze the life out of you?” Is this describing a rape? Also the chorus of “You will throw your arms around me,” implies that either the object of the narrator’s affection doesn’t have a whole lot of say in the matter, or he is being rather presumptuous. This was somewhat confirmed after Paul McDermott’s cover of the song. Either by accident or design, he changed the lyric to “You may throw your arms around me,” and he was mocked for it, which suggests that “will” is important.

A friend has suggested that I am reading far too much into the song, and he takes it more as describing a summer shag. If that’s the case, it’s probably a depressingly accurate representation of Australian romance. “We may never meet again so shed your skin and let’s get started.” What girl wouldn’t melt for that? It’s really just one step above, “Darlin’ it’s yer lucky night.”

The second verse also has its creepy bits.

I dreamed of you at night time
And I watched you in your sleep

Hmmm.... stalking? Mind you, that’s only creepy on the same level that Every Breath You Take is creepy – not nearly as suss as squeezing the life out of someone.

Having said all of this, I must say that the chorus is brilliantly crafted. It has hooks in both the first and last lines, and can easily be sung by anyone, no matter how drunk they are. That’s clever songcraft any way you look at it.

As for the subject of the song though, someone please tell me I’m wrong about this. At best, I think Throw Your Arms Around Me is a song that has been mistaken for a love song in the same way that Every Breath You Take, The One I Love and One have been.

PS: I don’t rate Sounds of Then very highly either.

The NBN Will Not Fix Your Computer

Last night the 7:30 Report aired an article on the release of the National Broadband Network business plan.  As part of getting all sides of the story, they spoke to a lady in Tasmania who is connected to the NBN and believes it isn’t providing the service promised, with slow and unreliable connections.

However, take a look at some of the shots of her computer:

The wide shot shows that she has at least three third-party toolbars installed.  The closer shot shows that one of them is the Google toolbar and another contains links to Screensavers, Smiley Central and Cursor Mania.  The report states that she has had technicians out to look at the problem several times.  If I were one of those technicians, I would have taken one look at that toolbar and said, “There’s your problem!”

As a teacher of, and trouble-shooter for computer novices, I regularly have to explain the difference between computer speed and connection speed.  Up until about ten years ago, the internet was a very handy add-on for a computer.  Today, it’s the only reason most people buy a computer at all.  As such, it means that “non-computer people” are even more confused between problems with the internet and problems with the computer.  This is why I often have to tell people that upgrading their internet connection will not make Adobe Reader load any faster and increasing their RAM will not speed up their downloads.

Let me be clear that I am not making any comment on Ms Jenkins’ internet connection.  For all I know, it may be just as bad as she says it is and even if it isn’t, I don’t doubt that she has made those complaints in good faith.  What I am saying is that the problem shown in the report is a classic case of browser lock up that would have happened if she were on dial-up, ADSL, 3G wireless or fibre to the home.  The report states that when they were there, it took six minutes to “connect,” however, picture below clearly shows that the browser has crashed while trying to load the add-on toolbars.

I’m not a computer snob who expects everyone to know the technical details of how software works or thinks everyone should set their computer up the same way I would.  However, toolbars are a menace.  You don’t need them.  Want to search for something?  Go to www.google.com.  Need a shortcut to Gmail or Ebay?  Put them in your favourites/bookmarks.  Toolbars do nothing but take up screen space and system resources, and they collect data on how you use them.  Having one is bad enough, but having three or four all trying to do the same things is utterly pointless.  Furthermore, that smiley central toolbar is well known for turning perfectly decent computers into frustrating pieces of crap.  While it probably isn’t the reporter’s place to point this out – he simply presented Ms Jenkins’ story as it was told to him – what was shown did not present any evidence of the NBN being substandard.  Also, whether it was their job to or not, the technicians should have done her a favour and ditched those toolbars and shown her how to use SpyBot.


Watch the report,
iTunes:  http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/730report/video/podcast/r692331_5227737.m4v
Windows:  http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/730report/video/podcast/r692331_5227734.wmv

2010: The Review

The 21st Century franchise has been going for a decade now but may well have jumped the shark with this latest episode. The series started really well with joyous occasions followed by dark twists which set up the drama for the series but it has meandered at times. It was a stroke of genius for the producers to hire Aaron Sorkin to write 2008, but they really should have kept him on because the next episode didn’t follow through on what had been set up. The character of Sarah Palin, introduced in a supporting role in 2008, was kept on to replace George W Bush as the lovable nincompoop. That was fine as comic relief but the expanded role has only highlighted what a one-dimensional character she is. She adds nothing to the plot and needs to be written out. Similarly, the Barack Obama character is barely recognisable from the one that was introduced two years ago. It’s as if the writers haven’t even watched the previous installments.

In a seemingly desperate attempt to maintain interest, they have introduced a woman as Australian prime minister. Although this is supposed to be a surprise twist, the way in which they have her take the top job is utterly clichéd. If they had really wanted to be brave, they would have had her win the election first rather than replacing a flagging party leader like all the previous times. The attempt to introduce new characters after the election ultimately goes nowhere.

All of these shortcomings pale in comparison to the fanciful idea of giving Britain a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In fairness, no-one could accuse them of being predictable, but the reason it’s unpredictable because it’s just so implausible. The producers are going to have to go a long way to regain the credibility lost in that subplot.

This DVD is not a dead loss though. By far the most interesting aspect is the behind-the-scenes documentary made by freelance director Julian Assange. What it presents goes some way to explaining things that happened in previous episodes but sadly does not do anything to make 2010 make any more sense.

2010 rates 2 stars. Wait until they put it in the weekly section.

Connecting the Dots

So all the news this week has come from one particular website. Actually, that’s nothing new. What’s slightly new is that the website isn’t Facebook or Twitter, or TMZ, but a site that might possibly have some information of some importance.

So what have we (allegedly) learnt this week?

We learnt that the US State Department (allegedly) thought that Kevin Rudd was a “control freak,” who would make “snap announcements without consulting other countries or within the Australian government,” but without “the experience to do the job properly.”

We learnt that Mark Arbib has (allegedly) been an informant to the US embassy.

We knew that Mark Arbib was one of the faceless men™ who removed Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

So,
US embassy not keen on Rudd, Arbib keen on US embassy, Arbib starts moves against Rudd.
Does this all add up to a very Australian coup?

Wikileaks 2 – or Give ’em Enough Rope

As previously mentioned, I am neither for nor against Wikileaks. I think the organisation has the potential to do both good and harm. However, the gratuitously messianic tone of this latest tweet implies that they might be a bit more interested in their own notoriety than the potential good or harm of what they do.

One of the whole points of Wikileaks is to remind us that power corrupts – however, they might be doing so by example as well as in what they publish. There’s no denying Wikileaks has become very powerful this year.

One of the more shocking revelations to come out of the Wikileaks saga has nothing to do with anything the site has published. Instead, it’s come from the reaction and calls for the assassination or execution of Julian Assange by many in the US media. (And I thought Bill O’Reilly was supposed to be against the death penalty.) If that’s the case, why hasn’t anyone arrested Geraldo Rivera and Fox News for revealing troop positions in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq? Whether Assange is a crusader for freedom of information or a very naughty boy is an open question but the idea of killing anyone who embarrasses the government is something we expect from countries that the US usually lobbies (or more) against.

Perhaps the most telling revelations will come not from what Wikileaks publishes, but from the reactions to them.  Perhaps its value lies not in revealing governments’ true colours, but by provoking the the powerful into revealing them themselves.  The most disturbing discovery from Wikileaks so far, is the chorus of “Kill, kill, kill!” from those who would usually claim to defend freedom.

The Bonus Discs - Band on the Run

Bloody hell! How many bloody times do I have to buy the same bloody album to get all the bloody extras they add to it?

That’s a fair question, but since this is a review of the bonus DVD that comes with the special edition (if you need me to tell you what a great album Band on the Run is, then there’s not much I can do for you), let’s look at it a different way. Imagine the near-mythical Wings film One Hand Clapping was finally released after 35 years in the vaults and was available from Amazon or your local for under $30. Most McCartney enthusiasts would definitely be interested in that. Now imagine it came with the free copy of Band on the Run and a bonus CD of selections of the film. Bargain, right? So let’s approach it from that angle before discussing if it’s any good.

The film is mostly fly-on-the-wall footage of Wings rehearsing at Abbey Road studios. It introduces the second 5-piece line-up of Wings – adding Jimmy McCulloch, who looks barely out of puberty here, and Geoff Britton, who lasted less than a year in the band. This may have had something to do with the film being shelved. The context of what’s happening is hard to glean. There are clearly rehearsals but there are also recordings going on as we hear the band discussing which take is best. There also seem to be overdubs happening for the Band on the Run album and an orchestral session for Live and Let Die which is odd because that song was already out when this film was made. They might have spliced footage from the original session in with the rehearsals we see here. Did they really make the orchestra dress up in their dinner jackets and bow ties for a recording session, or was that just because it was being filmed?

We hear interviews with every band member but these are not to camera. Instead, they are mostly played over the documentary footage and often over the music. Grrr!

A bit over half-way through, the film switches gears and we see Paul solo at the piano talking about his fondness for cabaret. He makes mention of the song Suicide (written for Sinatra but rejected) but doesn’t play it. He does play I’ll Give You a Ring which was eventually released on the B-side of Take It Away, and two songs unreleased elsewhere – Let’s Love and All of You. Although Paul feigns some embarrassment and self deprecation during this section, you can tell he’s a total ham and he’s loving it.

It’s this enthusiasm that shines through, especially when he is directing other musicians. He may be a show-off but we see how Paul will do anything to get a great performance from his players. This is especially noticable when he does a live vocal during the orchestral overdubs for Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five just to get the maximum energy in the performance. And the audio mix pushes the bass. Win!

One the downside, the film has not been restored in any way so visually, it’s exactly what you’d expect from a made-for-television film from 1975. Also, the entire disc is formatted for 16:9 which means that if you still have a 4:3 television, as many still do, you’ll get black bars on every side of the screen. It might just be my player, but I had that happen even when I set it to pan & scan.

Having said all that, it’s possible that One Hand Clapping is intended merely as the bonus feature of the DVD, but I think to any long-term McCartney fan, it’s going to be the main attraction. Other features of the disc include the videos for Band on the Run, Mamunia and Helen Wheel plus a promotional film for the album. Since all of these have already been released on The McCartney Years, it’s reasonable to assume that anyone considering this release already has them. There’s also fifteen minutes of behind-the-scenes footage from the cover shot (half as much would have been plenty) and Wings in Lagos which is some short home movies soundtracked by a longer version of Band on the Run (A Different Perspective) which was originally done for a BBC promo.

While it may be a drag that Paul is still presenting his work according to what the conventional wisdom says is good, rather than rehabilitating some underrated greats, there’s still more than enough on this disc to make it a worthwhile purchase for anyone with more than a passing interest in Paul McCartney and/or Wings. Here’s hoping they put the James Paul McCartney television special on one of the other upcoming reissues.

Feature: * * ½

Extras: * *

Audio: LPCM Stereo

Worth paying extra for? Yes, and worth buying the album again if you’ve always wanted One Hand Clapping.

And for anyone who’s interested, here’s a visual comparison of the three different Band on the Run remasters,

Band on the Run - original CD release

Band on the Run - 25th Anniversary edition remaster

Band on the Run - 2010 remaster

The Rules: Consistency

....or Obligatory Wikileaks ’Blog

If you’re concerned about the implications of spreading all kinds of confidential and classified information all over the internet with little thought to the damage it might do to innocent people, then I can totally agree with that.
However, if you also took the “climate-gate” emails as your “Aha!” moment against climate change, then I’m going to call hypocrisy.

The debunked and discredited fake scandal over those leaked emails provides what certain American commentators now call a “teachable moment,” regarding Wikileaks. It’s the difference between data and intelligence. There was a situation where people got hold of some perfectly innocent information and made it into something it wasn’t because a) it was stolen, and b) because they had no idea of how to read the information. The “scandal” there hinged completely on people’s misunderstanding of what “fixing the data,” meant in that particular context.

Wikileaks does basically the same thing, except that they don’t suggest any particular interpretation of the data, they just throw it all out there for any inexpert eyes to make of what they will. I’ve yet to be convinced that this is good for democracy. I’m all for the right to know, but I’m also cognisant of the need to know. I know that sounds like rationalising government secrecy, but sometimes it is necessary. For instance, much as I oppose the war in Iraq, the fact that it goes on regardless of my opposition means that innocent lives are endangered the publication of certain information. For my money, the protection of people’s lives trumps the imperative to reveal that the US government lies – a fact that has been pretty well established anyway. Now I don’t know whether these leaks endanger lives or not – I’m not an intelligence expert. But frankly, I don’t trust a rabble of online crusaders to make that call for me.

Is “cable-gate” any more or less of a meaningless beat-up than “climate-gate”? How would I know? How can anyone know? We have the data, but so what? How do we interpret it?

Regardless of the idiotic blathering of certain right-wing television personalities, it is clear that Wikileaks figurehead Julian Assange is playing with his life now. More important people have met with accidents over less, and those who arrange them don’t give a shit about any kind of new media new paradigm.

And this leads us to the other hypocrisy. Julian Assange’s location is being kept a secret. Under the circumstances, this is prudent. But what about the right to know? Shouldn’t all the information be made public and let the people decide how important it is? Whether he is hiding from assassination or hiding from arrest is probably irrelevant now. Given the timing and the subject of the original arrest warrant, it was tempting to think, “Oh, how convenient! He sticks it to The Man and now they’ve trumped up some charges against him.” Naturally, he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn’t mean he’s not guilty. We would need to have all the evidence in order to know that.

If only there were some kind of website that provided information like that.