Saturday 5th July 2025
Blog Page 2072

Eye Candy: Meet Your New Fashion Team

0

“Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”

Coco Chanel

PDF version

Each week, we will be bringing you the best in Oxford street fashion. From the casuals strolling to lectures to the all-out glam of formal halls and dinners, the team will be out and about capturing those trends that students are actually wearing. But for now, or at least until term starts, let us introduce ourselves and our fashion mantras. (However if you do see us, camera tow, be prepared to stop and be harassed – SMILE!)

Joanna Wilkin, St. Peter’s College
There is no point in fashion if it is not fun. As Oscar Wilde famously put it “fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months”. Fashion is quick-paced and unforgiving (velour tracksuits and gypsy skirts?!). Yet, like other girls this term, I see fashion as individualism, a chance for creativity and a moment of expression – it is about findi

ng your style. From milit

ary boots to floral tights, my Dad’s shrunken jumper or a customized sequin dress (because you looked awful in it in the first place!), fashion should be embraced and always enjoyed.

Giela Abd, St. Peter’s College
If I ever want something, it is probably something you can wear, walk in or carry on your shoulder. My lecture notes are filled with doodles of shoes and dresses and my definition of a perfect break from work is a quick hop to Zara or French Connection. Obsessed? Maybe. But clothes can be art after all, and I am an aficionado. The last few seasons have been all about leather for me. In the summer – leather with florals, later – leather with fur and knits. Or combined with lace for a perfect party outfit. Feathers are on the horizon too (although this trend has yet to convince me).

Sally Rushton, Pembroke College
I love the fact that fashion can be so many things: a multi-billion dollar industry, an elaborate art form, a medium of self-expression. It is inescapable and you are only young once so if you want to wear a ludicrously impractical yet fabulous feather jacket then go for it!

Sarah Hourahane, Mansfield College
A well-considered outfit can make you feel great – it can be the icing on the cake in an interview or on a night out; it gives you that bit of extra confidence. Yet it is also something to have fun with. Making costumes and dressing up for bops/fancy dress (see my Halloween attempt at Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride) – anyone can be creative with their wardrobe!

Annabel Barratt, St. John’s College
Aged about 8, I had my earliest fashion epiphany. I hyperactively raided my mum’s wardrobe and created my first piece of haute couture. Belting several yards of bubble wrap around me, I created a body-con masterpiece. Hopefully I’ve come a little further since then, but my excitement for all things fashion related remains the same. I’m a bit of a fashion magpie, with anything sparkly or sequined posing a serious threat to my planned budget for the week, but during the day I have an equal appreciation for jersey basics or a well-cut blazer.

Also, check out our new Fashion blogs starting this term, SWOT: SHOP, a weekly review of shops and their collections accessible to Oxford Students beginning with the new online boutique, A| Wear, and BEHIND THE SCENES, a sneak peek behind each fashion shoot and links to some of the featured items.

Guide to Christmas telly

0

So, you’ve picked the last scraps off the turkey, the Christmas compilation CD has been discarded for another year, and your sorry excuse for a tree is once more thrown onto the compost heap. But do not despair: Cherwell can help you keep that festive feeling by giving you the low-down on the Christmas telly. What better way to ease yourself into the New Year than catching up with the programmes you missed because you fell asleep at 6pm after the ninth glass of mulled wine?

I can’t claim to be a massive fan of Dr. Who. In fact, I had never watched an episode until last week and I had no idea what was going on most of the time. A far as I can gather, a weird and hungry bloke called The Master wanted to turn everyone on earth, and some time lords, into versions of himself. The Doctor didn’t think this was a great idea, so chased him around for a while and eventually, with the help of an old man and some green spiky people, managed to track him down. We all knew this was Tennant’s last episode, and it was actually quite moving as sci-fi goes. Apparently the tears during his regeneration were real. My brother enjoyed it though, and I will defer to his knowledge in this (one) area.

The ladies of Cranford returned to our screens this year for more p

olite conversation, village gossip and pre-watershed romance. The book on which the series is based is arguably not Gaskell’s finest work, lacking North and South‘s passion and any sort of smouldering love interest. But still, it’s one to watch with the parents; it will certainly make you smile, and Judi Dench is eminently watchable as the sweet Miss Matty. If, however, you are yearning for a costume-drama heartthrob: stick to the Pride and Prejudice box set.

Day of the Triffids is scary. That is all I have to say on the matter. The majority of the population is blinded, and then the man-eating plants are let loose. Obviously one of the few people left with his sight just happens to be a Triffid specialist, and it is his job to find a solution to the plants-taking-over-the-world problem. Fortunately there is also a love interest in the shape of Joely Richardson, and a nasty baddie, played by the excellent Eddie Izzard. Completely unbelievable, painfully predictable in parts, but definitely worth watching.

The season’s comedic offerings deserve particular mention; with Christmas specials galore, we were dished up a veritable selection box of mirth. One not to miss was the Christmas episode of Outnumbered. Hugh Dennis and Claire Skinner are always superb, but the kids in this series are incredible. In this episode Dennis is tasked with preparing the dinner, while Skinner goes to collect her dad from the care home where he lives. Highlights include Karen’s biting critique of everything from goat-based charity presents – “so, it’s not a present for me: it’s a present for the sub-Saharans” – to A Christmas Carol – “would we let Hitler off if he bought everyone a goose?”. Ben’s melting plastic dinosaur and the increasingly bizarre game of charades are classic moments, mainly because we can all remember something quite similar happening at home. Pure comedy genius.

The two-part

Gavin and Stacey special is unmissable, mainly because it signifies the timely yet peaceful death of one of our favourite sitcoms of recent times. In the first episode, the Shipmans and the Wests head to the beach, where Smithy gets stuck in his rubber ring, Dave departs to find some gas and Doris is predictably pervy. In the second, and final, episode Nessa prepares for her nuptials with Dave of Dave’s Coaches. Look out for guest appearances from John Prescott and Noel from Hear’say. The writing by Ruth Jones and James Corden is as charming and quick as ever, and Rob Brydon is excellent as the lovely, oblivious, Uncle Bryn. Go and buy the box sets.

If staying in with your stale mince pies and the dwindling box of celebrations is not exciting enough, perhaps you fancy a trip to the cinema? Nativity, starring the lovely Martin Freeman, was this year’s family-friendly festive release. Freeman is a primary school teacher directing the dreaded Christmas Nativity, with his loveable but clueless teaching assistant Mr. Poppy on hand to help with/ruin everything. This is, however, a nativity with a difference: not only do the residents of Coventry think that Hollywood will be coming to watch, but Freeman has to convince his ex-girlfriend to save the day. Oh, and the nativity is a musical. Cue cute kids auditioning, heart-warming sing-alongs and decreasing believability. In one baffling scene, a mother watches her child (playing the angel Gabriel) being lowered from the cathedral’s spire, screams, and then cheerfully joins in with the singing. Hey, it’s Christmas, who cares if these things don’t really happen?

Democracy: the best policy?

0

As we enter a new year (indeed a new decade), we leave with the saccharine drone of this year’s X factor winner at number one and arrive into the run up to arguably, the most important general election in our lifetime. An odd link, one might think. However, following Simon Cowell’s announcement that, after a stunning set of viewing figures for this year’s X factor final, he plans to launch a “Political X factor” in the run up to this year’s election, I began to consider how the seemingly vacuous, yet lucrative, concept of voting on so-called “talent shows” compares to voting in a governmental election.

Simon Cowell is a man who represents the rise in the manufactured, guaranteed-number-one-selling, populist pop phenomena that so many people abhor. Many fade into obscurity within half a year, whilst the infuriating resilience of The Cheeky Girls is countered by the fact that at least the show which discovered them brought us Girls Aloud, and the delightful Cheryl Cole. However, I do not want to digress into the various musical merits of the products of such shows.

“hordes of housewives braved the icy pavements to prevent Joe “Me mam’s me best friend” McElderry’s toothy grin becoming a forced loser’s smile”

Whether by coincidence, or not, the rise of these shows coincided with the beginnings of iTunes era. As a generation grew up expecting to be able to have music free, the genius of these shows was, in effect, to make people pay twice for it. First voting your preferred artist to the top, and then buy

ing their lacklustre ballad afterwards. For those who felt that they knew about “real music”, the dominance of these acts in the music charts was a complete travesty, but if anything, the rise of the protest single campaigns (Jeff Buckley, Rage against the Machine) has helped even more, as hordes of housewives (albeit futilely) braved the icy pavements to prevent Joe “Me mam’s me best friend” McElderry’s toothy grin becoming a forced loser’s smile.

As the past decade came to its end, various “charts of the decade” came out, and of the top ten singles of the decade, five came from talent show winners/runners up (holding the esteemed company of Bob the Builder and “Is this the way to Amarillo?”). Indeed, even for someone such as myself who has the iTunes collection of a 14 year old girl, the top 100 singles of the decade made depressing listening, with the Crazy Frog , the Ketchup Song and Afroman all making an appearance. Voting in an election is one thing, but voting in a television competition, or “voting” in these charts (by buying a single) requires one to pay. People bought the Crazy Frog single, in fact over half a million copies were sold. Let us hope it was one rich idiot, as if it were the case that 550,000 people bought one copy each, then they could easily be a group of people that could swing an election (2% of the 2005 voting electorate).

“our government is being chosen by people who thought “Can we fix it? (Yes, we can!)” was the tenth most worthwhile song to purchase this past decade”

This is where the idea of Cowell’s “political X factor” seems like a terrifying prospect; because it reminds us that it is the might of the public that decides the way forward for the country. We delight in the fact that we have universal suffrage for adults, we condemn unfair elections and we deride China’s single party system (a government, who incidentally restricted voting in television shows in case the populous got “a taste for democracy”) and yet in these “other elections” where people are given the power to choose, whether by telephone voting or buying singles, we ridicule the results.

The emergence of television voting and novelty singles makes the reality of democracy clear, our government is being chosen by a group of people who thought “Can we fix it? (Yes, we can!)” was the tenth most worthwhile song to purchase this past decade. If we had to decide on the best song of the 2000s, surely the method that most resembled a democratic model such as most purchased would be the way forward. Then, the result would be Will Young’s “Evergreen”, yet I am sure the hordes of supposed musical experts would vehemently disagree. But if this is a flawed measure, why is a similar method seen as best system for choosing a government?

“there is something taboo about suggesting that those who are more informed should have the power to choose government”

Of course, we hope that it is a small bunch of people voting/buying repeatedly, however most often this is not the case. Whilst the measures we accept for what really is the best song or best film tend to revolve around the decision of a panel of impartial experts, there is something taboo about suggesting that those who are more informed (more intelligent?) should have the power to choose government. Few, it seems, would back the reintroduction of the extra vote for graduates of major universities (the Oxford and Cambridge constituencies were abolished in 1950), whilst in the US, even the introduction of “the save” in American Idol, a device by which judges could, once a season, save an act from elimination, was branded “evil” and “undemocratic”. But could our discontentment with such populist results be a further point against the argument that democracy is the best policy?

As it stands, I most certainly wouldn’t be up for an electoral reform that saw voting rights only given to those of a certain IQ, or some similar measure, but with Bhutan (only marginally avoiding “authoritarian regime” on Democracy Index) and Brunei (an absolute monarchy) both in the top ten of a recent University of Leicester study of the happiest countries in the world, maybe democracy is not always the answer, and at least, one hopes, not Simon Cowell’s version of it.

Keeping those 2010 resolutions

0

As reported in Cherwell recently, the Tesco Bank survey showed that only 10% of Britons managed to keep their last New Year’s resolution beyond January. Even fewer make it all the way through the year with their resolution intact. Before coming up to Oxford I had never felt the need to make a New Year’s resolution. This certainly changed after the excessive consumption in my first term as a fresher at Hertford in 2005, and I knew something had to give.

Football and good food were too important to sacrifice and increasing my attendance at the gym seemed to be too much effort, so I decided to give up what is both the student’s best friend and the ultimate nemesis – alcohol. Perhaps I had subconsciously been influenced by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, who once said ‘to be without some of things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.’

To begin with, it was easy to stick to the resolution. When in Hertford bar it was far from difficult avoiding the dubious temptations of the Dark Pango. Formal hall was certainly less enjoyable without regular glasses of red wine, but it was also a great deal cheaper, both on the bank balance and on the liver. As the weeks went on though, social pressures made it increasingly difficult to decline the alcohol with which Oxford is awash. For one thing, it soon became tiresome explaining to people why I was ordering virgin cocktails rather than my usual pint of ale.

So, despite my initial enthusiasm, and the five weeks of effort I had put in, my will-power eventually failed me and during the second bop of Hilary term my New Year’s resolution was no more. I had barely made it beyond January!

If I had nursed any lingering embarrassment about this apparent weakness of will, it would soon have evaporated when I read those findings in the recent Tesco Bank survey. It seems that I am not alone in needing a little bit of support to keep my annual promises.

According to the survey, four in ten of us will make a New Year’s resolution for 2010. Many resolutions will look to improve our health or our finances. If you have already made your resolution, you will almost certainly still be full of the vigour and confidence that mark the early stages. You may have dragged yourself out of bed to the gym first thing in the morning, or you may have declined that second helping of dinner from your overly-generous mother. This is an excellent start and you deserve to feel proud but, once you are back at college, you might find the going slightly tougher. Early morning trips to the gym are much less appealing after an all-nighter, whether of the working hard or playing hard variety!

There are four simple measures you can take to strengthen your commitment to your New Year’s resolution:

1)Restrict yourself to one simple, attainable goal. When January comes around, many people make the common mistake of setting a number of different goals. While each goal might be very worthy, it is hard enough to successfully keep one resolution. Choose the goal you most want to achieve, make it your New Year’s resolution and try to achieve it before moving on to other ambitions.

2)Tell your friends and family. Letting other people know will help when you are with them, as friends can remind you of your New Year’s resolution. While some friends may initially make some jokes and jibes at your expense, if you are determined to see your resolution through most will support you and almost certainly end up admiring you.

3)Make your resolution public. While publishing all manner of personal information in public forums is now the norm because of Facebook, Myspace and Twitter, there is much to be said for letting the world know about your New Year’s resolution. If nothing else, it will make you more reluctant to quit, and deleting the resolution from your profile page or wall will feel like cheating.

4)Use the internet. There are a number of websites out there designed specifically to help you make and keep promises. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, you could try the American website, stickk, which allows you to wager money that you will see your resolution through. If you and a group of friends want to make the same resolution, then pledgebank might be worth a look. Alternatively, if you just want to make your resolution public, tell a few of your friends about it, and receive weekly reminders, then digipromise might be the place for you.

If you are still wavering about making a New Year’s resolution, it might be worth remembering the wise words of the German poet von Goethe, who said, ‘We can always redeem the man who aspires and tries.’ Or if 18th century poetry isn’t your thing, a similar message was conveyed by the former Canadian ice hockey player, Wayne Gretsky, when he said, ‘you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.’

So what was my New Year’s resolution this year? While giving up the gym seemed to be too much effort in 2006, my expanding waistline and reducing stamina suggest that the effort might be worth it after all. Go to DigiPromise to check my progress and make your own New Year’s resolution for 2010.

Good luck!

Flight 253

0

Responding to a failed attempt at a terrorist atrocity is surely a hard thing for a political leader to play. The temptation seems always to get out there, immediately, on TV, and say something. Show resolve, express anger and determination, and in the process get a bump in the polls by looking and sounding like how we have come to think a leader should look and sound in such circumstances. That Obama did not follow this clichéd pattern is impressive.

By ignoring the impulse to rush towards the nearest microphone at the earliest hour, Obama has given a proportional response to the incident. Behind the scenes, much is being done, as it should be. The national security apparatus continues to function. A thorough review has been ordered (the likely conclusion of which is that the damaging, ego-driven pre-9/11 turf wars between the several US intelligence agencies have not yet dissolved, or have re-emerged). The federal government has made immediate changes to airport security policy. Obama has, since this all kicked off on Christmas Day, been in charge, and informed.

But this was, we should remember, a failed attack: this man is not a bomber, he is a failed bomber. The administration was right in its calculation that a media frenzy fueled by the White House would only have given undue encouragement and credit to the attempted terrorists. A public show of alarm by the President would have afforded them the semblance of victory when they have achieved little. By staying quiet, letting his staff handle the incident, and by sticking to his prior plans, Obama played it right.

The moment chosen to speak — a brief, low-key press statement by the President three days after the incident from his vacation in Hawaii — was well-picked. Fear and anger had subsided, enabling the public to appraise the event more rationally and with some distance. The President had more facts at his disposal: he was able to tell them things they did not know; pointing not merely to the likely aggressor but also providing details of what is being done in response. The shouters on the looney right, bawling that Obama had shown himself to be insufficiently interested in the safety of the US, were rebutted with hard facts and even temperament. Most importantly, by waiting, Obama spared America the unhelpful circus of competitive fear-mongering that has ravaged the political discourse surrounding such episodes in the past.

Flight 253 should be viewed with a sense of perspective. Howard Fineman is usually excellent, but his latest piece for Newsweek seems off the mark. Some of the article is quite interesting. But I’m not sure about its big point, which seems to be that pursuing health care reform was daft because, as “underscored by the Nigerian bomber”, the US is at war. You read this often: By tackling healthcare, Obama has tried to do too much, given that the US is at war and was in a recession last year. Fineman is right that the healthcare bill is imperfect. In some respects it is a poor piece of legislation, a missed opportunity to be truly radical, but that is the inevitable result of (necessary) compromise with those who disagree. It’s off the mark to argue that much-needed reform shouldn’t have been pursued because there’s other stuff on the President’s plate. That view pervades the US journalistic establishment — that what is arguably the world’s preeminent bureaucracy can’t handle multi-tasking. It can. And certainly it shouldn’t be frightened into inaction by a man who set fire to his pants.

Words of the Year 2009 announced by OUP

0

Staycation, Tweetup and Jeggings are some of the Words of the Year 2009, according to a list commissioned by the Oxford University Press.

The list was compiled by the dictionary expert Susie Dent, who scanned the Oxford English Corpus, a two billion word database.

Tweetup, a meeting organised through Twitter; Hashtag, a hash sign added to a word that enables Twitter users to search for Tweets; and Paywall, a way of blocking access to a part of the website, were some of the words derived from new technologies.

On the list there is also an array of business-related words. The recently fashionable minute mentoring, where professionals are advised by mentors in a speed-dating form, was on the list as well as freemium – a business model in which basic services are free, but users pay for extra features.

In November, the Oxford American Dictionary chose Unfriend as its Word of the Year 2009.

 

Review: Ed Ruscha – Fifty Years of Painting

0

Ed Ruscha describes his paintings as ‘information age art’: a label that seems fitting the moment you walk into this retrospective. The first room is full of paintings of single words blown up against a block-colour background. The words are mostly taken from commonplace, transient sources like adverts or comic strips. Such intense focus on the words of pop culture out of context (the 1962 ‘OOF’ Acanvas, for example) makes them seem comically removed from language, to the extent that they become purely visual objects. In ‘The Back of Hollywood’ (1977), Ruscha continues the idea of words-as-objects using a real life example. By painting the iconic Hollywood sign from an unexpected angle, he confronts us with its dual existence as a word and a material thing, and the consequent absurdity of placing a huge word in a physical landscape.

This painting also marks a transition in Ruscha’s work from the brashness of the early word-images, stencilled on in full Technicolor, to the complexity of urban landscapes centred on LA, Ruscha’s home. These later compositions retain the bold approach and large scale of his earlier work; gas stations, museum complexes, cinema screens are sliced up by dramatic and razor-sharp diagonal lines which seem at times parodically grandiose. There is a challengingly American sensibility to all of this; the large areas of block colour suggest huge areas of flat space, wide vistas interrupted only occasionally by buildings or signage.

But Ruscha’s images do not convey contentment with this vast expanse of the American West. He interrupts the geometric rigidity of compositions like ‘Standard Gas Station’ (1966) with unexpected elements like fire; the clean division of building against sky is interrupted by vicious-looking flames. The buildings he depicts seem antagonistic both to their natural landscape and to the humans implicit in their construction. In fact, people are pretty scarce in these compositions. Walking around the exhibition is actually a rather bleak experience; Ruscha’s information age is too swept up in its own arch-urbanity to have time for human beings.

This frustration of his with modernized America remains a central preoccupation of the Hayward’s vast and comprehensively curated exhibition. Perhaps the most nuanced expression of this is found right at the end, in the pair of monumental canvases ‘Azteca’ and ‘Azteca in Decline’ (2007). The former is an exact replica of a colourful street mural the artist found in New Mexico, complete with cracks in the concrete wall and some graffiti. The second painting suggests the continued effects of time on this mural, but includes trompe l’oeil to a surreal extent; the mural image has been torn and folded, crumpling from its grey background. Ruscha emphasizes on a monumental scale that even the grandest image is not infallible, and that any record, verbal or pictorial, will eventually be eroded. Even if our age is saturated with information, we can’t be fooled into thinking that any of its records are permanent.

Three stars

‘Ed Ruscha – Fifty Years of Painting’ is on at the Hayward Gallery, London until 10th January.

Admission for students is £6. Full-price tickets are £10. There is a 2-for-1 offer on tickets on Fridays. See Hayward Gallery website for further details. 

Review: Sherlock Holmes

0

When a filmmaker starts talking about a new way of depicting a well-loved literary figure there will always be a few who consider such talk alone tantamount to blasphemy. I don’t count myself among them, though admittedly the thought of Guy Ritchie, best-known for his gangster films, directing two Hollywood A-listers in the leading roles of a new adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was a mix that didn’t look too promising at first. Thankfully, this very mix has produced one of the most entertaining films of the year.

There’s not a deerstalker in sight as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson try to solve the mystery of a serial killer who has apparently risen from the dead and a secret society that is trying to take over the world. Okay, I’ll admit that the basic plot doesn’t sound all that good on paper and with good reason, as my rather apathetic synopsis suggests the plot simply isn’t particularly interesting. Yet this is scarcely a problem because this film is less about the mystery and more about the men who solve it. Where the script fails in producing an engrossing story line, it excels in its reworking of the two leading characters.

Although the plot may not deserve an extensive description, the characters certainly do. Instead of what some had feared; a case of Hollywood massacring a piece of literary history, what has actually taken place is a very well thought-out and even surprisingly subtle reimagining of the leading characters. Far from being a total overhaul of Holmes,

Robert Downey Jr’s portrayal of a troubled genius does not stray all that far from the original, save perhaps for a slightly greater emphasis on the ‘troubled’ part. He craves occupation, either intellectually, or physically, enjoying both a fight in pursuit of criminals or simply for fun (and perhaps some money) in his spare time. The audience is shown a man with a brilliant mind able to solve any crime with which he is presented, yet who is incapable of taking care of himself. Left to his own devices, his craving for intellectual stimulation sees him become increasingly destructive both to the furniture and himself. Here we see a truly flawed genius, one that despite the changes from the books is perhaps closer to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original than one might think.

Whilst Holmes may be lacking some social skills, Jude Law’s Watson is every bit the charismatic Victorian gentleman, who manages to engage his own not insignificant intellect in more constructive and organised pursuits. This is certainly not the bumbling sidekick we’ve seen in previous screen adaptations.

It is the relationship between Holmes and Watson that is the film’s most interesting feature, one which is explored in surprising depth for an action-comedy film. Holmes is in many ways dependent on his good friend Watson to pull him out of his destructive phases. At times Holmes appears almost childish compared to Watson who must play the part of both a friend and at times a guardian. This is only reinforced when Sherlock learns that his friend is moving out to live with his fiancé. Yet this dependence is somewhat reciprocal. Whilst Watson might want to appear reluctant to help out his friend in solving a case, he still yearns for adventure, perhaps seeking to re-live his past, one which we are led to believe may not be as unblemished as it seems.

Having spent so long on the characters I have almost forgotten to praise the two leads for their superb performances in creating them. This is not to say that the supporting cast was poor, far from it, but they were all very much a sideshow compared to the heroes of the piece. The same goes for pretty much everything else, even the wonderful recreation of Victorian London and Guy Ritchie’s distinctive style of directing took a back seat role, letting the two leading actors carry the film. This may suffice as a one-off, but when it comes to the inevitable sequel my concern is that this won’t be enough and a more arresting plot will be necessary. But setting those concerns for the future aside, whilst Sherlock Holmes contains much that is below par, these problems are easily countered by the excellent characterisation and acting to make this a thoroughly enjoyable couple of hours.

4/5 stars

Network Trauma

0

Networking. When I was too timid I got it wrong and when I was too zealous, even worse. In the past I have always been very backward in coming forward, to my detriment. On the rare occasions I have been introduced to someone useful, a potential ‘contact’ you might say, I have been rendered as speechless and as charismatic as my pet goldfish.

I decided I had to change, but it proved difficult. The turning point was a workshop at The Guardian, the centre piece of which was a ‘networking lunch’ – a revolting premise. The enjoyment of food should not be polluted by careerist plotting. However, squeezing a lukewarm sausage roll for support, I edged my way around the trestle table and tried to avoid eye contact whilst I formed a strategy. I bottled it, so my strategy became talking to the friends I had made in the morning and avoiding detection by any of the Guardian people at all costs. After ten minutes, my cunning strategy had crumbled. The recruitment woman was on to me. ‘I’ve been watching you and you haven’t moved! You already know these people! Get moving! What are you waiting for? Who do you want to talk to? What are you interested in?.’ She had smelt fear and she was not going to let me go without a tussle. I was led to someone more useful.

It was going rather well, conversationally, and I was relieved. However, moments later the lioness was back. She could not understand why I had stagnated and hit another networking brick wall. She ushered me round again and this was repeated until that lengthy hour ended. ‘So, how many email addresses did you get?’, she asked excitedly. Should I lie? I didn’t have time. My hesitation was enough. She could see that I was hopeless.

A few weeks later, I was at a drinks party full of potential contacts. Knocking back tepid Sauvignon Blanc, I was galvanized and indestructible. As tipsy as I was, I had no joy with a doddery Daily Mail columnist, who seemed wholly perplexed by the phrase ‘graduate recruitment’. He had managed to register that they did occasionally have some work experience drones milling around the office, but did not know how they arrived there. Across the room, my father seemed to be having more success. For reasons unfathomable, a woman from Harpers Bazaar had taken a shine to him. The second I heard the magazine title, I sent him back over to her. He was not keen. I insisted.

In effect, I pimped out my own father. Unable to network myself, I had sent my own father into a divorced harlot’s gaudy den. I felt guilty, but not guilty enough. I left my father to meet my friends, with strict instructions to get her number. The following day, he threw a business card at me. Bingo. What a price he had paid though, he looked so disturbed. He had not wanted to offend her and had ended up taking her out to dinner, during the course of which she had made several ‘lewd suggestions’. The mind boggles. He did look traumatized. All I can say is that I’m sorry. Next time, I’ll have to take the hit myself; if there are any lewd suggestions to be made, they should be made to me. Sorry Dad.

 

A Decade in Music

0

10) Demon Days – Gorillaz  (May 2005 – Parlaphone)

Surprisingly enough, Demon Days is the only album in the top ten to be the product of a cartoon band.  The concept? that Gorillaz is a group of four animated characters who create and perform music. Of course 2D, Noodle and their cronies are not really creators, but the brainchild of one half of the Gorillaz project, artist Jamie Hewlett.  Hewlett’s creative partner is former Blur front man Damon Albarn, and it is he who is responsible for the majestic sounds of Demon Days. 

Throughout the record, Albarn displays his abilities as one of his generation’s greatest tunesmiths, with his folk-inspired melodies enhanced by his fifty-a-day vocals.  The songs amalgamate a series of influences, from dub-reggae to hip-hop to trip-hop to be-bop, fashioning a quirky and energetic sound world. The record features a host of guest appearances including De la Soul, Ike Turner and Shaun Ryder, yet this plethora of genres and artists doesn’t detract from the album’s focus and cohesion.  A nod must go to wunderkind producer Dangermouse who beautifully fractures the sonic texture with vinyl crackle and analogue hiss, helping to make this Albarn’s finest work to date. 

9) Since I left You – The Avalanches  (November 2000 – Modular)

The Australian band’s two members worked separately when creating Since I left You.  In two identical studios, Robbie Chater and Darren Seltmann used mainly Yamaha Promix 01 and Akai S2000 samplers (relatively rudimentary equipment) and ferreted through their expansive record collections looking for sample-able sound bites with little concern for copyright.  Once an idea was spawned it was sent to the other half of the band to expand, and all the time the central concept was developed: ‘the international search for love from country to country’.  The first master copy, made up entirely of audio snippets from other sources, had within it around 3500 samples none of which had been approved by its author.  And so began the task of seeking licence, and due to legal difficulties the album was stripped back significantly before its official release.  Such audio absence is unnoticeable however, and the record, which is as uplifting an album as you’ll hear, remains, sadly, the band’s only full-length release. 

8) Up the Bracket – The Libertines  (October 2002 – Rough Trade)

What with Pete Doherty’s increasingly boring excursions into drugs, tabloids and the law, it’s easy to dismiss his musical output as insignificant.  It’s not, and this album proves it.  Up the Bracket, whose title alludes to a phrase from 1950s radio comedy Hancock’s Half Hour, triggered a new era in guitar-driven indie music with its counter-culture lyrics, disorganised we-won’t-pretend-to-be-good-at-guitar performances and under-produced finish.  Even if Doherty’s subsequent work doesn’t cut the mustard, his first offering is definitely worth a listen.

7) The Black Album – Jay Z  (November 2003 – Roc-A-Fella Records)

With production contributions from the likes of Timbaland, The Neptunes and Kanye West, The Black Album, which at the time of creation was to be Jay Z’s last, was never going to be anything other than a hip hop classic.  As one of the genre’s cardinal albums, Jay Z’s eighth is sometimes credited with the propulsion of hip-hop further into the mainstream.  It was perhaps here that hip-hop ceased to be the domain of just the American hood; middle class kids in suburban bedrooms now had an equal share in the genre that a few years later would attract the masses at Glastonbury Festival.  As you’d expect, Jay Z’s lyrics are sublime on this offering, one of the greatest in the hip-hop canon. 

6) Arular – MIA  (March 2005 – XL Records)

It has been said that ‘anything with a beat’ influenced MIA’s debut album – a dance album that failed to perform commer

cially but left critics hungry for more. Perhaps the biggest influence on the album is MIA’s father Mathangi Arulpragasam, a Tamil activist with the codename Arular.  His revolutionary ideals informed the thematic basis of the record, the product of MIA’s objective to create a dance album ‘that addressed important issues.’  The opus features appearances from the likes of Diplo and Switch, helping to retain the relentless energy that emits throughout.

5) Takk – Sigur Ros  (September 2005 – EMI)

The Icelandic band’s fourth album brought with it a new accessible sound; this is as close to bubble-gum pop that Sigur Ros is likely to get.  Granted, this band’s ‘pop’ is always going to be more Squarepusher than Coldplay, but the band’s adoption of the visceral to counterbalance the cerebral is plain for all to hear.  The album combines the macro with the micro; expansive guitar-walls juxtapose beautifully with intimate string quartet minimalism, achieving a euphoric aesthetic which is more familiar to the masses than the masses would think. Much of the music has been used by the BBC: as well as underpinning Planet Earth’s trailers, various tracks have become ubiquitous on Top Gear.  Fortunately, not even the image of Clarkson, Hammond and May kicking back to a bit of Sigur Ros is enough to put us off the record, the band’s magnum opus. 


4) The Love Below/Speakerboxxx – Outkast 
(September 2003 – LaFace Records)

This quirky double album from the enigmatic duo Andre 3000 and Big Boi contains a bit of something for everyone.  In fact, it’s a safe(ish) bet that everyone is capable of singing a verse from the duo’s fifth studio album: it is, of course, the work that brought us pop classics ‘Hey Ya’ and ‘Roses’.  There is no typical track on this album – a coalescence of Outkast’s two halves’ solo projects – as influences vary from straight jazz to geeky Aphex Twin-style electronica.  Moreover, it is the diversity that such influences bring that defines the album.  Not many records from the last decade juxtapose a short play starring American rapper Fonzworth Bentley, a prayer to God in which the protagonist asks for a ‘sweet bitch’, and a breakneck improvisation based on ‘My Favourite Things’.  Despite the constant change of mood, both halves of the record feel like song cycles from which you could remove nothing without damaging the framework.  This was the first Parental Advisory labelled album to win an album-of-the-year Grammy.  After one listen, we can tell why. 

3) You Forgot It in People – Broken Social Scene  (October 2002 – Arts & Crafts)

‘You Forgot It in People’ isn’t the album most would expect a band of nineteen people to make.  Rather than an hour-long cacophony with a bunch of guitars giving it some, the record presents us with an intricate sonic experience.   The songs, which are glossed with a chaotic production, juxtapose traditional structures with adventurous instrumentation; sudden shifts in texture and boy-girl vocals add to the freshness of this work, the brilliance of which cannot be overstated.  The highlight of the album is fan-favourite ‘Anthems For A Seventeen-Year-Old Girl’ which encapsulates BSS’ creativity with its digitally modified vocals over-pinning layers of simple but effective instrumental lines.  There is no weak track on the record – even the instrumentals that bookend the work sound relevant. Baroque-pop at its best.

2) From Here We Go Sublime – The Field  (April 2007 – Kompakt)

Despite being one of the lesser-known albums in the top ten, From Here We Go Sublime is one of the most justified. A product of prestigious German label Kompakt, the record was ubiquitous on ‘best of’ lists at the end of 2007, and was noted for its reluctance to conform to the pervasive techno trends of the time.

‘The Field’ is the moniker of Swede Axel Willner, who, for this album produced music which falls somewhere between minimal techno and trance.  Despite its dance aesthetic, the music is not such that would be heard in club; the record feels more natural through headphones or a bedroom hi-fi – this adding to its unique charm.  With its simple structures, the pieces borrow from Reich-like minimalism: small cells of sound (samples from the likes of Lionel Richie and The Four Tops constitute the bed of the record) repeat and repeat, gradually undergoing Willner’s subtle transformations.  With a sense of propulsion supplied by glitchy, softsynth beats, the music surges and retracts resulting in one of the most hypnotic aural experiences we could hope to experience. 

1) Kid A – Radiohead  (October 2000 – Parlaphone)

In the aftermath of the band’s previous release, Radiohead seemingly abandoned their previous influences.  No longer listening to Nivarna and REM, the quintet instead devoured the electronica of Warp Records’ back catalogue, immersed itself in contemporary classical music and developed an academic interest in Jazz; these influences combined to create an ethereal sound world on Kid A.   The opening track ‘Everything in its Right Place’, utilises solely synthetic instrumental forces, with Yorke’s mutated voice more another layer in the tapestry than a centre-piece.  ‘Idioteque’ samples one of the earliest ever pieces of electronic music, creating a beat driven lament on modern society.  The record’s standout track ‘The National Anthem’ spawns out of a short bass riff that permeates throughout, underpinning a Charles Mingus-like brass section constructed to sound ‘like a traffic jam’.

Now, the opus is unanimously seen as a classic, but at the time of release, the fans’ and critics’ reactions were luke-warm.  Furthermore, at the time of recording, not even all the band members were in favour of the change of direction. The camp was split into two factions during the sessions in a wintry Copenhagen: those who wanted three minute pop songs and those who wanted anything but.

Unlike the band’s previous works, Kid A didn’t provoke a superfluity of cheap imitations.  Even the most ambitious of plagiarists recognised the methods of construction used were too complex, the sphere of influence too expansive and the overarching vision too unique to warrant an attempt at emulating the sound.  No other band could have made this record: the decade’s finest.