Ranting on the X Factor

Now…  If I were to sit down and pick through every single article of my objection to, and every single reason as to why I hold ‘talent shows’ e.g. Britain’s Got Talent in absolute contempt, then my newest rant would span beyond the capacity of the internet to withhold on a website like 'blogger.com'. So this is a very toned down and less example driven commentary on these shows. Intro over – I am bursting to get to the point:
(In the interest of simplicity I’ll only criticize The X Factor here, however the endless reality show drivel can also be criticized by many of the same virtues with which I criticise The X Factor here)
The exception to these forms of entertainment that I take can be classified into several categories:
-          Their prescriptive, mainstream based outlook on music.
-          Their failure to put contestants into the music industry who do anything to make a significant difference.
-          Their bias in judgement.
-          The demographic of the general viewer.

So, to begin with my first point about how the judges, and perhaps authorities behind the show, are prescriptive with their view; with judges like Cowell and Barlow (still the others but more so the ones like these two) who dish out insults to contestants frequently, there is a feeling that they are these great legislators of definitive and unquestionable musical truth. It wouldn’t matter if Mozart and Wagner were the judges, one cannot take music (specific instances of energy released by aurally noticeable vibration) and make it an absolute. Just the mere concept of a certain noise being better than another noise because of something that it is on a superficial and unfamiliar level is arguably a bizarre one. Admittedly, with regard to musical capabilities, the judge of a music based show being someone like Louis Walsh as opposed to an unquestionably skilled musician like Beethoven* adds to the hypocrisy of the whole aspect of the show being based on a legislative evaluator. There must be someone other than myself who gets annoyed when week in and week out there is some Judge who is a glossy ex member of a boy band or some other nauseating creation of money driven music telling people who come on that they can’t sing. Its quite besides the point, but is it not true that many people who are successful in the music industry as vocalists cannot sing as such. However lest not dwell on the prescriptive nature of the show – it isn’t my main criticism of it as such.

This is the main objection: What defines a generation musically speaking is the original music that comes out in that generation. Modern music is defined by the Contemporary R’n’B and Hip-Hop that is popular at the moment. Anything that is in the charts will make my point, I would speak about specific artists but I am not what you might call an avid follower of chart stuff so I apologise for the lack of substance here. This is what my criticism of their failure to put contributing musicians into a forward looking music industry comes in. Ok lets be honest; The X Factor is a glorified Karaoke – for all intents and purposes. Contestants get up and cover a song... then leave again. So the end product, after a long contest, is that the nation knows who is most effective at learning to be able play someone elses song smoothly after a weeks preparation. Absolutely brilliant... if we want an industry driven entirely by cover artists. It strikes me that the shows aim is to render their contestants into the best musical based form of tracing paper possible. If it is agreed that the people who are going to make a difference in the music industry are those who play original songs, or who at least play covers in an entirely different and newly meaningful format than the originals, then surely it is also agreed that the proverbial human music tracing paper that are generated by the show are not going to be the individuals who define the generation and who make masses of impact on the scene altogether. I may be the only person out there thinking this, but I certainly think that a show that seems to be attempting to give something to the music industry rather than a one night stand type of entertainment to the public in the format of the running of the show, ought to be trying to generate contestants with their own ideas and musical visions. In the pre show interviews I am struck by the amount of people all saying their motivation for embarrassing themselves on national television is for the potential fame the show brings. If for once someone with a new idea of their own came on the show it would be refreshing. If the show wouldn’t chew them up and spit them out in the mainstream machine *cogs spinning, money making, people burning* manner in which it would, then it would nurture some real musicians for the public. To back up my point just think of how many successful musicians have come from X Factor compared to the amount of series. Listing all those I can think of off the top of my head there are 6 (Cher, Jedward, Leonna Lewis, JLS, Alexandra Burke, Matt Carlisle)... I may have missed a few, but still the show hasn’t bred that many true super stars, and in fact the amount of people who go through the show seemingly successfully and come out doing nothing are unbelievable. Just 4 people for you to dwell on the careers of who illustrate that point – Shane Ward, Steve Brookstein, Leon Jackson and Joe McElderry. Those are ALL winners of the show. If the show had forced them to generate a really revolutionary idea that nobody else was doing musically speaking, then they would at least have had memorable careers outside of reality television.

Onwards – the musical bias section... Louis Walsh. I almost only have to say his name and some people will know exactly what I mean. Watch his silly face every time an Irish person comes on the show. It lights up like a Christmas tree... on Prozac... getting a handjob. Honestly – that would like me hailing the talent of anyone going on the show who spoke like a member of Adge Cutler and the Wurzels (although having said that, The Wurzels would truly be refreshment amongst the tiresome love song crooning of the average contestant).  So the shows are fundamentally unfair, on top of every other allegation I’ve brought before it. If we accept for a second that a supposed ‘music based show’ being diametrically opposed to the originality that benefits the industry is an entirely valid concept, then could it not at least be fair in its assessment? Ok put Louis Walsh and his national pride to one side for a second... Have you noticed the instances of what I call ‘pity qualification’? Pity qualification being when a contestant comes on with a suitably whiny, tearful backstory, and the nation holds it breath, watch them belt out some words that are nothing special in a nothing special way, and then all applaud the effort. Its as if we could all win the X factor if we had the audacity to actually let something go wrong in our perfect, straight teeth, unscarred, Clearasil, plastic, tacky, Californian beach hut, sunny lives, in which the unicorns are housetrained and there is always a rainbow in the sky of haribo dolly mix. As sorry as I am that their lives have been blemished in some way, that hasn’t turned them into B.B. King overnight. If the contest was fair I’d feel far less resentment towards it. I’m going to return to Louis now to elaborate on a slightly different tangent about the Irish point. The Irish as a nation are highly proud, they get behind Irish athletes, support Irish politicians... and Ooh, guess what? – They vote for Irish singers. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it would make sense that ITV would see the benefit in having Irish people competing. It keeps their phone lines ticking and also therefore their bank balances expanding. So I think Louis’s inclusion on the show is based on more than his ability to manage bands. In fact I think their thinking can be understood by this simple diagram:

Louis Walsh = Irish contestants competing > Irish contestants = Irish voters > Irish voters = money

This point is pretty isolated from this rant in a way, but its still based on the same frustrating sentiment that the show is money obsessed at the sufferance of the actual music.

At last I come to the demographic of the general viewer. This is more a conclusive point if I’m honest. The viewer supports all of this. The money hunger, the destruction of the musical industry, the putting of pop music and pop musicians on a pedestal of oh great musical judgement – none of this could be done without them. I don’t propose a boycott... or a strike... or any other moronic Totnes type idea that could be formulating in my head. If it was 50% more ‘total-prat’, that is. I am not surprised that the concept of The X Factor was ever conceived, perhaps I am not surprised either that the people have followed it. After all, there are always those who can’t put sob stories to one side and make an unbiased decision, there are always those who are going to have a snobby absolutist view of pop music and there are always the Irish who vote Irish. It still saddens me nonetheless.

I can only beg two things – 1) To all talent singers saying you want to go on X Factor; DON’T. You’ll become a cover artist and never have a career. If you really are talented then pursue a career and get noticed. When you do get noticed, don’t let them tell you how to do your stuff either. When music becomes compromise it becomes The X Factor. And 2) To Simon Cowell; read this rant. Make the snide remarks if you wish, but the facts are here in this rant. Stick that in your sweet pipe and smoke it my dear. Doesn’t it taste just great?

*For all you clever-wever, notey-wotey taking, observant leftists: I have not just gone back on myself – Beethoven’s skill level in arranging specific instances of energy released by aurally noticeable vibration IS unquestionable. Even if you don’t like it. I’m sure even that you don’t. To become a good a composer as he was takes immense skill. Its not like his pieces are based on 3 major chords. To illustrate my point I’ll use 2 examples – Sid Vicious, a poor bassist technicality and skill wise, regardless of how much you do or do not like his music – The members of Dream Theatre, all have great musical skill levels but again how good the music is remains a matter of debate. Seriously; just one comment telling me this bit is me contradicting myself and I’ll lose all remaining faith in humanity. Outside of what I expect from the trolls of course.

Self Preservation through means of becoming Qualified: The Secret to my ‘B’ at A Level Literature

Qualifications. Our careers, our future and, whilst we are at school, our entire lives all revolve around them. If they are good; they are our passport to a career we can choose ourselves, however if they are bad; they are the inhibition that drives us to any career we can get.

                A fair assumption to make then is that, however one might feel about the worthiness or validity of qualifications, (a matter I may get a chance to investigate in a more appropriate article) life is far easier when one has them. This is why some find the acquisition of these to be of desperate importance and will research the curriculum, criteria and mark scheme to the N^th degree in the hope that their work will reward them with a brighter future.

                So perhaps some will find it of interest to read how I managed to achieve a ‘B’ at A level in aid of their research towards their own grades. This is a piece of work by Terence Butler;

Planet Caravan

We sailed through endless skies
Stars shine like eyes
The black night sighs
The moon in silver trees
Falls down in tears

Light of the night
The earth, a purple blaze
Of sapphire haze in orbital ways

While down below the trees
Bathed in cool breeze
Silver starlight breaks dawn from night
And so we pass on by
The crimson eye of great god Mars
As we travel the universe

And this is how an A level grade B student analyses it, so you can see how it is done, my analysis is in italics:

Planet Caravan

We sailed through endless skies

The skies are traditionally the home of the god, God, or any kind of deity. The terms ‘endless’ and ‘sailing’, suggest a universal peace at the heart of religion.
Stars shine like eyes

To continue with the religious theme, Butler adds to the sense of the omniscience in the deities he aims to outline in this work, by likening the ’heaven’ to something with eyes.
The black night sighs

By specifying the ‘black’ night, Butler might be drawing an allusion to evil, and it sighing shows the generous repression of it by the deities here.
The moon in silver trees

These are also further religious references, Celine was the Greek goddess of the moon so the moon has always had a link to religion, and many of the ancient european pagans believed that the heavens were held in place by the trees. Trees were also used in pagan practise in England.
Falls down in tears

This leads Butler onto the next stanza which is anti religious.

Light of the night

Lucifer was, the Roman God of light before being incorporated into the Christian philosophies. But by referring to Lucifer in terms such as light, gives the impression to readers of today that he is enlightened > directly criticising religion.
The earth, a purple blaze

Remaining on the Roman theme Butler uses the term purple, which in Rome was the colour of the robes of the higher classes. This likens the religious world to a classist, money based ‘blaze’, which is also not a positive term.
Of sapphire haze in orbital ways

Sapphire is a precious stone, used often in trade and beautification, this suggests that religion is quantifiable and entirely image based.

While down below the trees

This returns the reader from the anti religious realms to a religious earth (remember how trees are likened to religion on earth)
Bathed in cool breeze

The coolness suggests a coldness towards religion of some men, like atheists. It is an attack on Athiesm.
Silver starlight breaks dawn from night

Dawn has its associations with knowledge and enlightenment. Which reflects the arrogant atheist attitude.
And so we pass on by

This line probably reflects the ignorance and dismissal of everything other than one train of thought inmost circles of atheism.
The crimson eye of great god Mars

Mars was the Roman god of war, which reflects a very basic argument that non believers put forward that religion only causes war.
As we travel the universe

The simplicity of this sentence reflects Butler’s scorn for them, it also suggests the atheist has to continue searching as he has not found the real answer. It might also have implications of a restless death and perhaps an eternal punishment therefore on God’s behalf.

                So to conclude; the poem is at first pro religion... then anti religion... then anti atheist... wait a second. Exactly. It isn’t any of these at all. In fact it’s not even a poem and Terence Butler isn’t even a poet. He is the bassist of Black Sabbath, GZR, and Heaven and Hell, and these are the lyrics to the Black Sabbath song ‘Planet Caravan’ (the idea to use Ozzy Osbourne lyrics and analyse them came from a remark my tutor made that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, however I have found a context in which analysis of them is actually useful to my point).

                But these arguments got me points at A level. I would read the poem and the first thing that came to my head I would continue to argue for the rest of the poem. The reason I made it jump from one idea to another twice was to demonstrate the falsity of an A level answer. In my first year I made more contributions in class than perhaps 90% of people there, in the final year I went quiet during these lessons. I think the teachers assumed I preferred first year Duffy to second year Donne. First of all, nothing could be further from the truth, and secondly it wasn’t that at all, I love literature. My silence was in disillusionment. It was too easy to do no work and to contrive an answer on the poetry sections. Granted, the A* and A students didn’t just make things up on the spot, and that’s why they got higher grades probably. But two years of talking bull certainly doesn’t justify a B grade. My work level was poor, I should have been an F student for what I did.

                But hey ho. We all need grades in this qualification and certificate obsessed society, and here is how to get them. You talk bull for two years, take your B in literature, and give the education system the two fingers in the process. At least that’s what I did. Maybe the fools even thought I was saying something valid everytime I contorted someone elses words to fit feminism, Marxism, or any other ‘ism’ I happened t be working with that day. Well this is from me to whichever of these you are – The people designing these literature courses;  make it harder for blaggers who don’t deserve easy grades to score highly and to the average lit student; be a blagger, get easy grades and score highly until the system presents you with a challenge. You have to cash in on these things in the world, even if they’re not right – its self preservation through means of becoming qualified.

The Folly of Higher Education

So you’re reading this article? A bizarre question perhaps when one interprets it as ‘So you’re reading this article?’, which is not at all what I mean, I can after all assume that any one who has mentally digested these words has gone through that human process we call ‘reading’. What I mean by the question is perhaps enlightened by it being presented as ‘So you’re reading this article?’ Again… perhaps bizarre until I explain my intentions behind the statement. What I mean is to present the anonymous relationship we have established in what may have been thus far a perplexing paragraph. In all likelihood have no idea who I am, what I think or what I intend to discuss. This is why I say; ‘So you’re reading this article?’ Because you could be anyone from my perspective, anyone can find this blog – it is by no means invitation only. Your response to this article is going to be different to many other peoples, although of course it is unlikely that your response would be an entirely unique response across the entire population of the world, there is unlikely to be a unanimous or even majority response and thus your opinion to this could be practically anything and I have simply no idea what you are going to think to it’s content. So having established that I cannot establish much of a personal address to anyone reading this, I am going to present myself now. This is essentially what I have intended by this prologue; to demonstrate that this is simply one account, one view and one person bearing witness; superficially to events, and fundamentally to an overall deeper worldly understanding.

                How contrived and pretentious that previous paragraph must probably read as. So over with the prologue and onwards with what I see worthy of presentation to these readers, who I have indeed assumed to be readers…

                I am the Trolljägarn. I am a recent addition to the students of the University of Essex. I am here to study Drama. Originally I was studying Drama and Literature but I made the decision that changing a 3 year course in order to sidestep a Literature module I would have to deal with for 10 weeks was in fact a wise decision. So here I am as a Drama student. A requirement of my literature course was to undertake a 10 week module of ‘Writing Skills’. I am no longer obliged to do this, however I am still doing it because I think I am benefitting as a student from it, that I am benefitting as an external writer from it and moreover it has turned into something of a fantasy novel. It is a pain to have to awaken for in the same way as it is a pain to trudge through the more boring parts of middle earth, the two hours can seem a challenge beforehand in the same way thousands of pages about orcs and dragons et al may seem at first but crucially; I am intrigued as to how these lessons will pan out and the proverbial class hobbits, rings and wizards have got me interested. Too interested to put the book down now.

                I hate paragraphs like the previous one - anything where the phrase ‘I am’ is used on eight occasions seems self indulgent, basic, childish, boring, obsessive and pointless on so many different levels. It was a necessary inclusion however as this is only my second blog and it might make following my later discourse easier and perhaps more understandable.

                Last lesson I found myself faced with a discussion about student fees. It is worth noting here that I am (that phrase AGAIN) known in social circles as being one with infuriating opinions. I have thus become accustomed to ‘watering down’ my opinions so as to avoid being spoken to, I am a private human being (ironically with a publicly accessible blog) and thus I have little interest in being drawn into a debate with people. So most of the time I don’t present the more extreme ideas I have in public, as otherwise the debates rage for hours – not something I will willingly subject myself to.

                So I took the side of the discussion I agreed with, however my ideas were presented as thus;

The rise in university fees are just because:

Our country is in financial turmoil > Having education for everyone regardless of economic circumstance is the ideal > We should strive for the ideal but only if our necessities are met > In order to meet this ideal we have to compromise our necessities due to our financial turmoil > Thus we need to compromise our ideal (i.e. our students having access to education) in order to meet our necessity (i.e. the effort to get our country into a positive financial environment) > Thus the government cuts in university funding and subsequent rise in university fees are just, albeit regrettable.

                I actually still stand by most of this argument, however the views I kept reserved are more alternative and thus would have been met with less understanding and greater hostility were I to mention them in my class. So I would like to now use this anonymous relationship we have to relate to you my actual ideas.

                The entire argument was based on the terms ‘ideal’ and ‘necessity’. These form the basis of the views I chose to hide in public face to face. My view is that education is not always an ideal, we see education and qualification as a necessity, and that we would be making significant progress in society in returning to a society where our ideals are closer to our necessities.

                By this I mean that in the past, back in agricultural England we did not have anyone with a degree in media studies or film studies (don’t you dare google that; it is a fact). Credit where credit is due; these qualifications have their purpose in the respective circles of media and film. They have their value. But they are not a necessity. If you take society down to a basic level you need, of course, the basic professions; those who bring food, those who bring protection, those who bring shelter etc. If I was to be put in a society where I was with fishermen, soldiers and builders, I can tell you for free that I would feel in a more workable situation than if I were in a society of media and film graduates. To have a basic society we don’t need universities as, to use an example from my previous discourse, a builder doesn’t need a degree. If you want total honesty; builders don’t even need to read and write. We were not always a literate society, literacy is not a necessity. I spent my seminar arguing as if it was an ideal, but I don’t even see it as that. We need thinkers in society, but we don’t need everyone to be a thinker.

                We have come to a point in society where to have a perceived simple trade, or to want to have a lifestyle which is not that of an academic thinker’s is shunned. Why was it that friends, family, strangers, tutors, and random, overly friendly, bus users expressed such disgust at my considering the army or the building trade as a future, and why did they treat a degree in Drama and Literature (as it was then) as an unquestionable article of goodness? I think most criticism of my points are going to be based on accusations of me being a nostalgic romantic, or being anti progress, or perhaps worse still; that I might be basic minded *swoon, shock, and horror!* However in a basic society there is not financial turmoil like in the stunted and flawed, yet ever so enlightened and progressive one that we live in now. Trade is more basic and there is not the same need to import so many things, thus we have a far lower expenditure and the output of the society is reaped by the simple society itself.

                Of course we can’t put our iPods, iMacs and iPrivelages down and return to the land now to reap crops where we have already built skyscrapers. However if we had never moved towards this society of complexity and pampering, then we would never have had the problems we have now. I would list the problems we have in order to really spell out my point, but I would not be so patronizing as to act as though you do not know yourself what these problems are. So whilst the view I presented suggested the government cuts are just because they are necessary, my view extends to seeing the monetary deterrent posed by these fees as a positive thing and the rise in people seeking jobs that will provide a more basic and solid future is a great happening for our country. If it can happen of course. The more complex careers, that I have already said there is a huge pressure to strive for, offer a fluid and weaker future, that does not help with what this country needs to function. We can function without media graduates (to use them in my example again, not that I have a specific hatred for them) and their impact. We cannot function without e.g. farmers. With more farmers there would also be less need to import, more to export and thus our country would be moving in the right economical direction.

                So allow me to conclude, as if I were Mark Anthony, and outline my point in the way Shakespeare would suggest he might:

Mainstream thought is based on the fact that we are benefitted by having many university graduates, therefore the heightening of university fees is regrettable and in order to progress we must lower the fees from what they are set to shoot up to. However, the reasons why a basic society operates on a more workable level than the one we live in now have been outlined in the previous text. In a basic society we do not need university graduates, and the rising of university fees are only regrettable in a society where university graduates are needed. Thus there is a flaw in one of the ‘factual’ premises of the mainstream argument.

                I am a hypocrite. Yes. I am a university student who has essentially just outlined every reason why my learning is entirely in vain and why it would be entirely just for the government to cut university funding and thus force my university to charge me far more money. Well I do question myself why I am here. I think I saw university as my only choice. I saw the opportunity to do something where I would only be charged a third of what those in the future would have to pay and perhaps regrettably I have taken it. Like Descartes, it has taken me to acquire this knowledge to see why the knowledge is pointless. Well – ‘pointless’ is an overstatement, perhaps ‘necessarily limited and virtually of no necessity’ represents my view better. Patient anonymous colleague, you have reached the end of this exhausting rant. Thanks from the Trolljägarn and goodbye.

The review of the Trolljägarn's response to Sam Leith's article

Greetings,
My name is Scott the interpreter. I interpret.
My subject today is the Trolljägarn. Recently joining the University of Essex, he was assigned a task of reviewing an opinion someone had (a task he favours, and of course takes to with great zeal). The opinion in question was that of 'Sam Leith''s, and on the topic of short stories and why theya re popular. However, as always, there were the usual passages and phases in his writing which needed review themselves, and first of course need to be interpretted. This is where I come in *applause and cheering ensues*.
This is how I have interpreted and reworked his original piece:

Sam Leith’s article ‘A life in six words’ explained:

                Sam Leith’s article is an attempt to outline the phenomena that ‘short stories’ have been, their roots, their popularization, and their current position and purpose in prose. His explanation for their popularity, the appeal that writers have for writing them and the readers desire to consume the literary product lies mostly in their concision. He terms this as ‘the economy of effect’. The physical strictures on the writer in this subgenre is what he suggests makes the achievement of writing a piece of prose in this genre an object of respect.

Although the article also suggests that some of the desire to write in the limits and confines of this genre can come from the self promotion aspect of its publication. Leith explains how, inspired by Ernest Hemingway’s famous story written in only 6 words (in order to win a 10 pound bet), a literary magazine based website received over 11,000 short pieces of literature in a competition they set up in which their readers could enter their own work. This is attributed to how the publication of these offered them a chance to get their name noticed.

It seems that the best standard short story needs the following:

-          Concision of illustrating the image, in order to allow the reader to envision it.

-          Lack of detail in the plot, in order to force the reader to consider its implications.

-          A punchline or twist that gives the story its purpose.

Leith finishes by outlining its credibility as a serious art form. He suggests that short stories are a versatile art form, saying of them that they: ‘can be the glorious occasion for a cheap laugh, also offers the chance for real artistry’. His conclusion 

The original piece did not read as easily as this hopefully has. The first corrections I found myself making were in the commas. My preference happens to be the 'oxford comma', which is when a list uses a comma on the penultimate item as well as the necessary 'and', and the reasons why these are my preference are observable in the first list.


Without and oxford comma it reads as such:
'Sam Leith’s article is an attempt to outline the phenomena that ‘short stories’ have been, their roots, their popularization and their current position and purpose in prose'

Read it aloud... if you're struggling to get your head around all the 'and's at the end then perhaps you can see why an oxford comma is a useful tool in the English language. Go back and read the first one as well for the sake of comparison. Both are entirely legitimate but an oxford comma makes a complicated list simpler to understand and is therefore my preference.

Onwards, and the next items I find myself correcting are the order of words in some of the Trolljägarn's sentences. This is a highly typical fault of the Trolljägarn. It seems that often he finds himself writing as a highly confused and convoluted person speaks, despite the validity of the point itself. This makes for difficult reading, a useful illustration would be:

'Although the article also suggests that some of the desire to write in the limits and confines of this genre might at times come from the opportunity of promotion that they also offer.'

No, the look of confusion on your face IS to be entirely expected. I changed the order of these words. If you like you can see how I reworded it in my tuned version (first sentence of the second paragraph). I hope the illustration he was trying to achieve can be understood now.

Now to move away from the criticism (this is, after all, the realm of the Trolljägarn himself). What he has done effectively is address the two needs of the response to the article in a reasonably neat manner. The two needs were to summarize the criteria necessary for an effective short story, and to explain what 'Leith' thinks about why short stories became popular and their credibility as a serious art form. It makes a natural progression from one to another in his work without appearing to be two entirely separate pieces.

All in all the response to the article was a reasonable effort... albeit perhaps a confusing and at times contrived effort. When the Trolljägarn reads my response he will with any luck be able to take my ideas forward into his next piece of work.

For your patience I am thankful,

S. The Interpreter.