Stephen Fry & Twitter.

Being one of Stephen Fry's 900,000+ followers on Twitter, i was very surprised to see the following Tweet, from the man hinself, appear on my Twitter feed this afternoon:

"Think I may have to give up on Twitter. Too much aggression and unkindness around. Pity. Well, it's been fun"

I'm sure that, like many of his other followers who read this, my initial thoughts were "what on earth has brought this on & why so suddenly?"

Thankfully, that Tweet was followed by another not long afterwards:

"Well maybe I'll see how I feel in a few days. Very low and depressed at the moment and any drop of meanness makes it so much worse. Sorry"

Now this might not mean a lot to many people & a lot of others may think "so what". But, this threat, if ultimately carried out, could have a big effect on Twitter & it's Internet standing.

One of the main selling points about Twitter & one of the reasons for it's huge success, is that anyone can follow anyone. Unlike some other social networking sites, no invitations, or friend requests are needed to follow a person. No matter who they are. Whether that be me, Stephen Fry, or even Barack Obama.
Now, i have only 300+ followers on Twitter & not the hundreds of thousands that some celebrities have. But, my Tweets are as visible as anyone elses.

This, of course, brings it's own problems. As with any Internet site, users have to invent a username to join the site. Now, this might be your real name. Or, you could make one up & be completely anonymous & herein lies the big problem with all such sites. Anonymity quite often breeds abuse & allows those who have such tendencies, to spread hatred.

I have no idea what has made Stephen Fry think about leaving Twitter. But, i would be a very surprised if that wasn't at the heart of it.
I'm sure that anyone with any history on the Internet has seen examples of such behaviour somewhere or other.

An Internet friend of mine did suggest that, if you join & participate in social networking sites, you can expect at least some sort of abuse at times, as it pretty much goes with the territory. Whilst i tend to agree with him & have suffered some of this abuse & hatred myself at times, that doesn't make it alright.

So, will anything come out of this?

I have a feeling that Twitter will be doing all that they can, behind the scenes at least, to persuade Stephen fry to stay on Twitter. After all, in the UK anyway, he has been a huge champion of the site & has created a lot of free publicity for Twitter, throughout his time there.

Maybe this will also create a debate about anonymity on the Internet & the issues that are raised by it? In some ways i hope that it does. It is a debate that is long overdue.
But.... we need to be very careful.
Not everybody, including myself, is happy for the whole world to know my true identity & for very good reasons too.
Our Internet anonynmity allows us to say certain things & give certain opinions that we might not be able to give, if we were forced to divulge our real names.
I totally accept that abuse & hatred, under the cloak of that anonymity, should be rooted out & stopped. But, who is to say what is abuse & what is hatred? We all have varying opinions on that, i'm sure.
After all, all social networking sites, including Twitter, have a facility for you to block anyone you wish to & to stop them following you. So, is that the answer?

As with all situations like this. Often more questions are rasied, than answered.

Personally, i hope that Stephen Fry stays on Twitter, as i enjoy his thoughts & humour.
I have a feeling that the owners of Twitter will be hoping the same thing.

Halloween - Yes. or No?

In recent years in the UK, Halloween has become big business, literally.

Although i remember "celebrating" Halloween as a child. What passes for Halloween in the UK these days, doesn't really bear much resemblance to the Halloween of my youth. But, then again, which of the traditional festivals & celebrations do?
As with most of these festivals that have their roots in ancient rituals & celebrations. What we see now is an amalgamation of different elements of several of these festivals. Christmas in another good example of this.

What bothers me the most about the Halloween of recent years, is the rise of the American influence on the way the UK "celebrates" it. Until a few years ago, very few British children would go around Trick Or Treating. Now it seems that they all do it & increasingly so every year.
I suspect that this is partly due to the spate of American Halloween horror movies & TV shows which are now shown in the UK. This has created interest in the way that the USA celebrates October 31st.

Now, i have absolutely no problem with the way that Halloween is celebrated in the USA. They seem to have turned it into an artform. I was lucky enough to be in rural Kentucky & suburban Chicago during the run up to their 2008 festivities & the house decorations were amazing. They really get into the spirit of it & it seems to be very well arranged & organised. For example, i saw whole houses decorated in huge cobwebs!

What i do increasingly object to though, is the creeping commercialisation of Halloween in the UK & the American influence in how we celebrate it. Whilst i fully realise that a lot of it is done for purely commercial reasons, i do object to seeing whole supermarket aisles devoted to costumes etc. Another thing i've noticed is the way that the emphasis in the UK seems to have shifted from the witches & broomsticks of my youth, to more of a "horror" theme.
Is that just me?

I guess that this is just me being slightly old fashioned & harking back to how things used to be done when i was a lot younger? But, things did seem to be so much simpler then. With more emphasis on fun & less on spending loads of money. There is also that feeling now of seemingly having to celebrate these festivals, or feeling left out. Especially for the children.
Personally, i don't think that's a good thing.

So, if you're going to celebrate Halloween this Saturday, have fun. But, don't be surprised if we don't all want to get into the spirit of All Hallows Eve.

Boo!

U2 + YT = ?

Well, i've just finished watching the video of U2's gig in Pasadena, Los Angeles last night. Which was streamed live across the world, via the YouTube video sharing website. All 2 hours & 20 minutes of it.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4QLFVrZ-fw

So, what was it like?

Well, watching a "live"event several hours it originally happened, doesn't have quite the same effect does it? But, that's the trouble with International times zones i suppose? Whilst half the world is asleep. The other half is rocking.

As for the gig itself. Well, i didn't think it was an especially good one (i wonder if U2 would agree with me?). For me, it took at least an hour for the band to really get into their stride. Once they did though, i thought the second half of the show was actually very good.

I was lucky enough to see U2, in London, during this 360 tour & have been a big fan of the band since their very first album, way back in 1980. So, i was interested to see what, if any, differences there might be to that show.
The first thing i noticed was the sound. What an echo there was in that stadium! That did get a little better. But, it was still noticable throughout.
The stage set & the lighting though did look as impressive as i remembered it. Especially during the second half of the set.

Having said all of that. I certainly don't want to criticise too much, as i think that this was a very innovative move by both U2 & YouTube. I can't think of many, if any, other bands who would be brave enough to allow a prestige gig like that be streamed live across the Internet & the world.

U2 have always been a forward thinking band. Both with their music & also their ground breaking tours. This was just another great example of that.

I believe that this live streaming was a first for both U2 & YouTube. They should both be congratulated for trying something new. Let's hope there are many more shows like this to come.

Space age stage. Space age technology. Space age idea.
It's the future you know.

Drawing A Blank.

A week ago i posted a blog all about my quest for film footage of bands playing on Hastings Pier:

"HastingsPier & The BBC"
http://andymooseman.blogspot.com/2009/10/hastings-pier-bbc.html

Since then, i've contacted several people in my search for live footage. Including those people suggested to me, gig promoters & even somebody who is researching a book about the live music scene here in Hastings.
So far i've drawn a complete blank. I've even had no luck with photo's, or old gig posters. I'm still hopeful that some film etc will turn up & i still have a few "irons in the fire". So, here's hoping...

But, this got me thinking about whether we will ever have this kind of problem in the future? After all, these days everybody seems to have a digital camera, a video canera, or a mobile/cell phone capable of taking video, or at least photo's.

If you go to a gig these days it seems that everybody is taking photo's, or video of the event. I even did it myself when i went to see U2 at Wembley in August & i posted that footage & photo's on the Internet for all to see.

With the advent of MySpace & then YouTube, every band, whether they be an ambitious upcoming band, or whether they just want to post gig footage for their friends, are posting & sharing it on the Internet.
In years to come, you will be able to do a Google search, or the equivalent & find footage from even the most obscure bands & from every venue you care to search for.

I just wish this option was available for me now. To see footage of Jimi Hendrix & all those other great bands playing on Hastings Pier would bring a huge smile to my face.

Just think what a huge treasure trove of digital memories we are leaving for future generations.
Nothing is lost.
This, of course, opens up a whole different debate. But, that's a topic for another blog, or vlog.

Keep on filming guys & gals.

Race For The Poppy.

It's that time of year again. Well, here in the UK anyway.
The annual race to be the first person to wear a poppy is now well underway.
Now, don't get me wrong, i always buy at least one poppy myself & fully support the cause.

The Royal British Legion do a wonderful job & those have that have given & are still giving their lives for this country need & fully deserve to be remembered.
But, what i do have a bit of a problem with though, is the apparent obligation to wear a poppy by all politicians, TV presenters & basically anyone in the public eye & the race to do so. I often wonder if there is some kind of instruction sent out to those i mentioned that they must wear a poppy.

Maybe i'm just a little cynical? But, this, apparent, annual race to wear a poppy before anyone else, or because they feel they have to, does a great disservice to the original reason for wearing one in the first place.

The slogan of the annual poppy appeal used to be "wear your poppy with pride". That's exactly how it should be. Wear your poppy with pride & because you want to, not because of obligation.

We will remember them.

BBC & BNP, IMHO.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise. We don’t believe in it at all”

Unless you’re not British, or have been living under a rock for the past few days, you can’t have escaped the impassioned debate that has been going on regarding the appearance of the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, on the BBC’s “Question Time” programme.
Just about anybody with an opinion on this has been wheeled out to express it.
So, why should i be any different?

As you can see by the quote that I opened this blog with, which is from Noam Chomsky by the way, i, somewhat reluctantly, believe that it was right for Nick Griffin to be asked to appear on the BBC's Question Time.

I’ll state straight away though, that I find the views of the BNP to be, at best, misinformed & misguided & at worst, to be basically Fascist in nature. I abhor their attempts to stir up ethnic tension & racial hatred in Britain. They certainly don’t do so in my name.

But, as the quote suggests, just because you don’t agree with the views of the BNP, or their methods, doesn’t mean that they should not be heard. After all, the reason that Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time in the first place, is because he is a democratically elected member of the European Parliament.
Therefore, he is entitled to air his views in public & who are the BBC, or anyone else for that matter, to deny him that right?
One of the great things about living in a democracy is the right to freedom of speech. If that is stopped, where does it end? You cannot pick & choose who has the right to freedom of speech, however unpalatable that may feel. Especially if they are an elected politician.

The people who should be blamed for this, are the people who voted for Nick Griffin & his BNP party in those elections. I suspect that many of those votes were cast as some kind of protest vote against all the other political parties.
I wonder what those people are thinking now & whether they will be voting BNP next time around?
Remember, be careful who you vote for, they might just get in.

I’ll admit that i didn’t watch Question Time myself. But, having heard the news & read the quotes, it appears that Mr Griffin didn’t exactly shine on the programme. Which, to me at least, is a big relief.
One of the good reasons for inviting him, or any other politician, onto a programme like Question Time, is to try & force them to say what they really think, to put them on the spot & to expose their shortcomings.

I’ll end this post by mentioning one of Nick Griffin’s quotes, which was about the “indigenous” people of Britain. Presumably Nick Griffin is one of those people who feel that only “true” British people should be allowed to live in the UK?
I find this very amusing, as it reminds me of my recent blog post “You’re not from around here are you?” which talked about exactly that point.
I wonder if Mr Griffin would subject himself to a DNA test? So that we can all see exactly where his ancestors come from.

Now, that would be worth televising.

Just Talking.

Recently, i've started listening to Podcasts. Either via my computer, or on my iPod, or iPhone. Why it's taken me so long to get to this point, i really have no idea.
But, anyway...

One of my favourite discoveries so far, is a podcast from a UK music magazine called "The Word". What this consists of is essentially three of the journalists sitting around a table & talking about music, or some other related topics. Now, to a lot of people this may seem like a recipe for disaster. But, i think it's absolutely brilliant & such a simple concept too.
I realise that the whole concept of the podcast is that it's audio only. Although i do understand you can get video podcasts as well. I've not tried them yet though & i'm not sure that i will either.

The audio podcast, although a product of the MP3 revolution, is in some ways a bit of a throwback to a bygone era. It harks back to the days when radio ruled the entertainment world. These days with TV, the Internet etc, so much of our entertainment is visual. This, naturally, changes the way that a program is delivered.

In days gone by, i can remember watching TV shows starring people like Peter Cook with Dudley Moore & Mel Smith with Griff Rhys Jones, who were basically just talking & often talking what appeared to be complete rubbish as well. I realise that both of these duo's were comedians & therefore a lot of what they were saying was scripted & acted out as well. Although you were never quite sure how much was ad-libbed & improvised.
The point being that this was very entertaining & for a great many people too. I'm not sure if anyone does anything like this anymore, on TV at least. These days we seem to need & expect as many bells & whistles as we can lay our hands on to make a much more visual experience. This, supposedly, is what the public demand.
But is it?

What i've found by listening to "The Word" podcast is that listening to people just talking, is really very enteratining. Especially when those people are knowledgeable & passionate about their chosen subject. There is no way that they can resort to visual stimuli to boost the entertainment quota. They have to rely on their voices, opinions, knowledge & the stories that they tell to do the entertaining.
What a novel idea eh?

It suddenly struck me earlier, whilst thinking about this topic. That maybe this is the reason that i like to watch & listen to vloggers on YouTube & elsewhere. As opposed to most of the other content on the site? It's just one person talking.

Maybe the audio podcast & the vlog are taking us back & reminding us all about the art of conversation, which so many people think is now a dead art form. It may be a one way conversation. But, the listener is quite probably participating in this "conversation" by laughing along, nodding their head. or talking back.
The art of conversation may well be very much alive & well. It's just found a new medium.

So, maybe going backwards is the new going forwards?

Just thinking.