thelump.net

This Week in Lumps
#21 [09/10 - 15/10]

· In Rainbows is 7 days old today. Stats and figures are starting to surface on how many, how much and how often, and music wise, everyone is enjoying the album. I’d thought I’d take this opportunity to round up some articles which have appeared over the last week discussing the hype, the music, the costs, and the repercussions. Let’s start with:

The Music.
When the dust finally settles, this is what is going to be the most memorable part of the last seven days; the band have been able to put their (or our) money where their mouths are. The Times were wax lyrical about the band, describing how, since OK Computer, they’ve “beaten down a path between the expectations of their fans and the abyss of absolute freedom.” Despite the small minority who want the band to repeat The Bends, they predict that those amongst the nation who have embraced Radiohead into their lives will thoroughly enjoy this latest effort:

The trick, I guess, is to give your fans what they didn’t know they wanted. Radiohead, old hands at this, have been doing it for over a decade now. With In Rainbows, they appear to have done it again.

The Guardian review was also full of praise:

The most heartening thing about In Rainbows, besides the fact that it may represent the strongest collection of songs Radiohead have assembled for a decade, is that it ventures into new emotional territories: their last album, 2003’s Hail to the Thief, had its moments, but it was scarred by the sense that the band’s famed gloominess was starting to tip into self-parody and petulance.

The Drowned in Sound fan reviews knitted together by Mike Diver also sang the praises of an album that sums up how as much as we’d like to, we can never expect the expected with this band:

“To say the music, to generalise, is ‘typically Radiohead’ is over-simplifying what shouldn’t be so neatly boxed: call it by-numbers if you must, but these are complex numbers; they’ve no exact value, no fixed point to pin down; they are partly imaginary.“

From Rolling Stone magazine:

“The music is full of vividly collaborative sonic touches, from the Gary Numan synth-nightmare drones of “All I Need” and “House of Cards” to drummer Phil Selway’s surprisingly deft way with his brushes and woodblocks. No wasted moments, no weak tracks: just primo Radiohead.

The Cost.
It was always going to raise some eyebrows, and it’s interesting to see who has backed the idea, and who hasn’t. Fans on messageboards up and down the country loved the idea, saying they would prefer the money to go directly to the band, rather than, to quote one user “Larry in a lounge suit somewhere in Los Angeles.” Johnny Marr, the former Smiths guitarist, now a member of Modest Mouse, is another enthusiastic supporter:

“I think it’s a really fantastic idea because it puts the responsibility back on people’s own consciences and deals with people as grown ups. Bands will have to up their game. Everyone knows you can get your music for free, so let’s see if you really want to show the band your appreciation.”

It prompted the BBC writers to discuss an interesting topic: Can we be trusted to pay a fair price for something even if we’re not forced?

Either you think that left to our own devices we’d spend all our time fighting each other and downloading rock albums for nothing, or you have a bit more faith, believing that even without the intervention of the authorities we will be rational and can be trusted to do the right thing.

The Aftermath.
What there has been a lot of this week is the question “Who’s next?” DiS proposed that it could be either Oasis or Jamiroquai, both being free agents after their contracts expiring with their labels, and The Charlatans can also be added to that list. Another band free of expectations and requirements of their label is Nine Inch Nails. As well as openly announcing to his fans that they should steal his bands music to fight the greedy bigwigs and their high CD prices, Trent Reznor said:

“I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate.”

Me? Well I enjoyed my first listen of the album; sadly I’ve not had the time to play it for a second time with my full attention, therefore I feel reviewing it would be slightly unfair. For those keeping score, I decided £6 was a good price to stick with, and I’m also very pleased that it’s going straight to the artist. What I find most interesting out of this is just how much praise the band are getting for sticking their collective necks out with the experiment. I doubt very much that the physical CD will be the ‘pot of gold at the end of In Rainbows’ as predicted by some, nor do I think that record labels are dead and buried.

I can’t hold it any longer, I need another listen.

~

· Football Manager, one of the most popular and addictive sports management games of the last decade, is gearing up to release the latest version of the series, packed full of new features for football fans of the much-acclaimed series.

The set up is so simple, yet so bloody clever; it’s had me hooked for years. You become the manager of any football club you fancy, and try to make them win everything. Nothing is scripted, nothing is set in stone, you buy the players, you set the tactic, and you get shown the door when you can’t win for love nor money.

The layout and graphics are similar to the last few games in this series, with a few tweaks here and there, however this is hardly ever a problem once you’re hooked in. I’ve had the demo on my laptop for the past few days, and it’s proven to be just as good as the last few, which an updated squad and transfer list to suit the new season, and a few minor details added, such as the redundant question of pitch size, and player bonuses. Some other new features include: A mini radar pitch appears during tactical changes, improved International management^, an advisor system, an improved notebook system, captain selection, improved board and fan confidence system, an award system overhaul, a revamped finance system, and a greater media setup.

What bugs me about the game (and I am really shooting in the dark here) is the release date. Aiming something so close to Christmas means you’re getting the game when all the major transfers and managerial swaps have happened: José Mourinho has long gone, the transfers of Joey Barton, Scott Parker and Carlos Tevez et al have been finished, and you’re left with the transer players that nobody wanted, leaving you to play a full season before you can buy or sell the players to your requirements, in short, your success or failure is dependant on someone else’s wily deals, or, in some cases, someone else’s shortcomings. Would it not be better to have the game released just after the season finishes, where you can jump into the jobs which are vacant (sadly just three uninspiring positions as the game begins) and have a much better selection in the market?

Fret not; this game will still sell like hot cakes. However, a warning is needed: this is a game that you don’t so much play as have a full on relationship with… and not necessarily a healthy one. However, that being said, it may just be the best game you buy this year.

Football Manager 2008 is out on PC / Mac this Friday (but keep an eye out for it appearing on Thursday, too), in all good shops, and some bad ones too.

~

· Whilst trawling around blogs on a quiet evening, you may be lucky enough to find a hidden gem of an article, written by someone who is obviously passionate about what they type, and is keen for the rest of the (virtual) world to experience and relive what they or others have been through. For example, you may be reading a Stephen Fry blog essay (delightfully nicknamed a blessay) about fame, everything that comes with it, and how he would prefer the conversation to go should you wish to stop him in the street. Sometimes you may find a post which is nothing more than a rant, but it well structured with good arguments both for and against their chosen subject. One example of this was featured in week 19: Telegraph journalist Frances Wilson had written an article describing her experiences of delving into the deep end of Facebook, and although she emerged admittedly addicted, she was left wondering why she had such an empty friends list, and why those on her list were people she wished, well, weren’t.

The third and final type of article you may find yourself reading, perhaps against your own will, is one written out of pure frustration; a self-pitying rant where the author has thrown out all rules and manners, and has degenerated into an “you’re all wrong, I’m right” speech. Maybe it’s not as bad as that, maybe the articles just annoy you because the author has failed to grasp the topic properly, or even neglected to ‘think outside the box’ and ends up writing about their own ignorance instead of sticking to what they know best. An example of this happened last week; somehow I stumbled onto an article in the rant section of Charity funded website TheSite.org (a contender for the worst domain name, I might add). The article was about friends on Facebook, and was written by a ‘fashion journalism student’ (seriously, good luck with that). She goes on to blame the Internet, and how it’s killed the personal touch, and the once treasured memories of intimacy and friendship. More on that later.

So it seems some people have a bone to pick with Facebook; it’s reunited them with people they had once forgotten about, it’s helped them spy on ex-lovers and old flames, and even sent them requests to bite zombies and throw sheep. So is this new level of spying really Facebooks fault? Before I can answer this, I feel I need to delve into this on a more thorough level.

Having had various online profiles and accounts over the past few years (forgotten sites such as Faceparty and Friendster spring to mind), I know through experience that, on occasion, you can get friend requests from people you wish would just leave you in peace, regardless of if you know them or not. However this isn’t such a big deal as the two ladies above seem to make it; I’d even go as far as to say it seems they are making a mountain out of a molehill. When you sign up to Facebook, and you import your email contacts at the very beginning, Facebook is only giving you feedback on who has and who doesn’t have existing profiles. The benefits in this, is that you can pick and choose who to add, and who to ignore. Is Facebook meant to mind-read that you don’t want all of your ex’s seeing your page? Are you expecting Facebook to work out why you don’t talk to half the people on your list anymore? I mean, is it just me, or if the solution was anymore blatantly obvious, it would be brick-shaped and would be smacking you in the forehead? Why not just clean up your email contact list before importing them to social networking sites? Or, in Francis’ case, when you find your list contains your tax accountant, start using different email addresses for your business and social life. If you’re not wanting them to see your pictures and your vital stats, then I’d assume you’re not emailing them on a daily basis either. Blaming Facebook for the situations you find yourself in is akin to blaming your PC every time it crashes or freezes; it’s what Tech Support guys know as PEBCAK. It’s not Facebooks fault; it’s yours.

One thing that bothers me about the progression of technology, and in particular, the growth of social networking is the cocky attitude of those who have clearly been left behind. It all started off with Myspace; along came this behemoth of a website, steaming onto the scene like a bulldozer with no driver behind the sticks. Add friends, comment on photos, listen to bands; the youth of today were delighted. Others, not so much. Comments started appearing on ‘grown-up’ websites and on the evening news, and it wasn’t long before everyone who wasn’t aware of Myspace before, certainly was about to be, which included your parents, and the family dog. Newsreaders would say the name of the site with a tinge of curiosity and bemusement, as if the teleprompter had accidentally added a rogue question mark: “In the news this evening: Has Myspace? taken over our children? More on that at Eleven.” Then Facebook appeared, and newsreaders simply swapped the sites to which they sound curious at: “Is Facebook? acceptable in the workplace? More on that later.”

When I talk about ‘leaving people behind’, I refer to those who see networking as some kind of anti-social hobby, a beacon for the sad and pathetic, a website aimed at thousands of lonely individuals who spend all day looking for new friends online. I remember reading a BBCi HYS topic discussing Facebook in the workplace, and the attitude of some of the posters was awful, bordering on pathetic. As you can imagine: lots of comments like “I have real friends” and so on. You and I (and 1.27million Londoners) know that this attitude and frame of mind could not be further from the truth. Much like Little Miss Fashion reporter above, who ended her tedious rant by saying “I just prefer to have friends who can poke me in real life if they really care”, these people don’t seem to have grasped what Facebook is best at, which is a 21st Century method of keeping up to date with a vast majority of your existing friends, be it friends that you’ve met in real life, or people you have met at your friends parties, or people you’ve started university with, maybe those who live at the other end of town, the other end of the country, or the other side of the world.

Facebook is good at what it does, but what’s more, is that it’s even better at doing it than its rival Myspace, which is sadly cluttered by bands, minor celebrities, dead people and inanimate objects. I never did enjoy the over-hyped popularity contest that Myspace seemed to promote itself as (like the Myspace bus). Users with personal goals to see how many people they could add to their list even if they had no idea who they are, and where they’re from. One of the main reasons I find Facebook so much better, its quality over quantity, it’s the boundaries and borders to personal accounts- there are no fake accounts or people pretending they are someone else. Everyone on my friends list I know personally, either from past relationships all the way down to friends of friends of friends. Rest assured, I always find it hard adding people I barely know, or haven’t said more than two words to, which mirrors real life, when can you start calling people you know… ‘friends’? This, of course, is a whole different topic, which is best left for another day.

To conclude, the majority of Facebook users are not sad, unless its now considered sad to have many of your friends dotted about all over the place, and having a medium of being able to keep in contact with them. If this is considered sad, then I for one will be very happy to label myself under that banner. Simon Pegg in Spaced said it quite well, I find:

“They say the family of the twenty-first century is made up of friends, not relatives.”

I started this article talking about rants, and “you’re all wrong, I’m right” speeches. I’ve tried very hard to avoid falling into my own trap, which is hard when you’re quite worked up about something: I really really wanted to set this whole thing straight. Luckily for me, and many of my friends in this city, the next city, and the city 4000 miles away, Facebook is here to stay, whether the grumpy old technophobes like it or not.

~~~

That was the week in lumps, a week in which: Last.fm tried to scrobble a Clemepod, Simon Pegg will become Scotty, there will be no new Pixies record for the foreseeable future, however we do still have Gandalf to look forward to, and 3,000 chickens were briefly on the loose in Glasgow.

So thats another week closed off. That last sentence is an example of my last topic of the day: Ernest Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in six words. Rumor has it that he considered his result (“For sale: baby shoes, never used.”) to be his greatest work. My Favourite however, has to be:

“Machine. Unexpectedly, I’d invented a time”

ttfn
x