Morning musings

Good morning, once more from Mocha Mecca.

Bit of an earlier start today. The great thing about morning appointments is that they ensure your carcass is out of its coffin at a decent hour, allowing you to embrace the fullness of every opportunity the day has to offer.

If only there was something worth doing...

Just kidding.

I read a quote yesterday. Sadly my defunct cognition prohibits me from remembering the exact words, or even the poor sod who said it. Incidentally, he or she is probably lying derelict in a ditch, starving as a result of unpaid royalties. This is now likely to weigh heavily on my conscience, but rest assured that my crisis of moral obligation shan't interfere with my commitment to my readers, which is publishing a good minute-and-a-half of something not entirely unlike entertainment, approximately so often when it suits me.

What was I saying? Oh yes, the quote.

“The life of the optimist is one of disappointment.”

Granted, not the most inspired phrasing – my apologies to those who were expecting something a little more upbeat – but it highlights the 'no expectations; no disappointments' philosophy that the pessimists among us live by. Pessimists are the ones who aren't optimists, and I confidently count myself among them. Not that I awake every morning to find my pillow stained with tears and cheap mascara (please, somebody get me to a cosmetician the day that I do), but I do appreciate a healthy dose of reality in my perspective, which serves as a daily reminder of the fallen world in which we live. It may not make me Mr Congeniality, but a basal level of disappointment in this world helps me keep the foundation of my hope and joy built upon the life to come – the eternal life I have through faith in Jesus Christ – so as not to be consumed by these present and numbered days.

(Sidenote: a plainclothes Cowboys player walked into the coffee shop. I think I know exactly who he is. What the hell is happening to me?)

Anyway, back to the point of my article, and disappointment.

Last night I went to see The Last Airbender at the cinemas with a good buddy of mine from work. I'll try not to give too much away from the plot for those who'd like to see it, but I was excited at the beginning of this movie because it appeared to set up a strong theme analogous to Christianity.

Basically, the story concerns a world divided into four nations, each founded upon an element (earth, water, fire and air), and living among these nations were gifted individuals who were able to manipulate (or 'bend') the element concerned with their nation.

These nations lived in peace and harmony, under the authority of the 'spirit world', which maintained order and communicated with the nations through the Avatar, a particular individual who could bend all four elements.

A century ago, the Avatar went missing, cutting the link with the spirit world. Consequently, the fire nation sought to take over and enslave the other nations, and the story begins with the world awaiting the return of the Avatar to restore order and balance, in a war that would be won “in the hearts of men”, according to a tribal elder.

I was excited because this painted a similar picture to Christianity: an enslaved world waiting for a saviour, who is 'master over all creation', intercedes for the world of men with the spirit world, and who is ultimately sent to unite the nations and win the ultimate battle for men's hearts.

Sadly, any similarity may have been unintentional, or pluralistic at best, as the story seemed to prominently feature themes of eastern religions (such as elemental spirits, reincarnation, Yin and Yang, and inner Chi) as it progressed. Still, potential to trigger some stimulating conversation.

So disappointing to a degree, but a reasonably entertaining story. In my opinion, there was far too much happening in such a short space of time, and as a consequence the film lacked character and conceptual development. My buddy tells me it was based on a comic strip, so as far as most book-to-movie type recreations go, this shouldn't have been surprising. If you're interested, wait for the DVD. SG

Controversy sells

Ok, so this one is no surprise, but after reflecting on recent events in Australian free-to-air media and their outcomes, my dander is well and truly on end.

Matty Johns, former Australian rugby league assistant coach to Melbourne Storm and co-host of Channel Nine's The Footy Show, removed from both positions following reports of involvement in a non-consensual 'group sex' with 11 other teammates/colleagues and a 19-year old New Zealand girl in 2002.

Recently hired by competing network Channel Seven to host his own, "family-friendly" The Matty Johns Show. Additionally, hosts Matty Johns' Controversy Corner on Sunday mornings. How appropriate.

Radio/TV personality Kyle Sandilands sacked from Channel Ten's Australian Idol following an incident (just one among a broad repertoire of well-publicised controversy) in which the 2Day FM morning radio show which he co-hosts with Jackie O, strapped a 14-year old girl to a lie detector, in the presence of her mother, and proceded to question her on a number of things, including drugs and sex. The girl revealed she had been raped at the age of 12. Sandilands was suspended from the radio show. Idol commendably sacked Sandilands, stating that "His radio persona has taken on a more controversial position ... which is not in the interest of the [family-focused] show."

A few weeks later, Sandilands resumed hosting the 2Day FM radio show, but was suspended again within less than a month, over remarks made Australian personality, and face of the Jenny Craig weightloss company, Magda Szubanski, concerning how much more effectively she would lose weight if she was simply put in a concentration camp. Szubanski's father, incidentally, was a Polish resistance fighter in World War II.

Sandilands is still currently hosting his radio show, and has taken up a similar judging role on Channel Seven's (again family-focused) The X Factor.

To quote Scott Adams' well-known comic strip character, Dilbert,

"Are you saying I'm more employable as a famous screw-up than as a competent nobody?"

What are the media (particularly Channel Seven in both of these cases) communicating in regards to the idea that 'actions have consequences'? In a society already deafened by cries over the inadequate sentencing of criminal behaviour, we get to endure two controversial public figures doing whatever the hell they like, and even though they are reprimanded (in a sense), they continue to be upheld in the public eye by competing commercial enterprises, simply because they are well-known in their industry, because of the controversy that surrounds them.

When will Channel Seven, and the media in general, acknowledge the social responsibility they have to their viewers? 

May God be merciful on our society, as we all keep riding the roller-coaster to anarchy.

A social experiment worth hearing about

Generally, when I hear about a social experiment in popular media, my face cringes at the thought of another better part of decade of something like Big Brother, or some other addition to the ranks of questionable reality television shows.

Imagine my delight then, when I heard about the Virtual Choir. Have a look:



Eric Whitacre has long been a favourite composer of mine, ever since I first played one of his pieces, October, in my high school wind symphony. From instrumental to choral, virtuosic to simplistic; his music has a profound beauty which captures the heart and stirs the soul.

As Whitacre explains, his Choir was something of a musical social experiment, bringing together voices from around the planet and unifying them in one piece of music. Sheet music was released, along with a 'conductor's track', for each 'performer' to download so they could record themselves singing one particular part. Their videos were uploaded to YouTube, taken by Whitacre and mixed together to create the Virtual Choir. The results were extraordinary, as you can hear.

If you want to be a part of the 2011 Virtual Choir, visit the link on the right and find out how. I definitely want to! Not only is it a social experiment worth hearing about; it's one worth being a part of! SG

Destination: Mecca, and Glee gets Speared

So a couple of days I purchased a laptop. Slightly impulsive, perhaps, but it allows me to escape the house, travel to remote and exotic locations, and find inspiration to write and write some more. Such is the intent of today's little foray, which finds me down at Mocha Mecca; a little cafe which has opened up just opposite the Riverside Tavern. Perhaps neither as remote nor exotic as, say, the cast of Getaway enjoy experiencing on a weekly basis, but then again I don't have a travel budget the size of a small elephant.

Initially, my ambitions aimed further afield, to the prestigious Macca's Aitkenvale (quiet please; I can't concentrate over your  'Oohs' and 'Aahs'). The purpose of this was to take advantage of the Free WiFi with every purchase. Caffeine, sugar and the world at your fingertips – what's not to love? However, I left my 'corporate expenses' credit card at home, with the rest of my wallet, and even the philanthropic Mr McDonald won't give you a free coffee, even for a good write up on a personal blog which averages two or three hits a week. Sadly, corporate sponsorship seems to be exceeding my reach for the moment.

So, after a return trip home and an overwhelming sense of concern regarding my car's impact on the environment (or was it sheer laziness?) I decided to journey the significantly shorter distance to Mocha Mecca. And I must say that I am enjoying the outcome, despite the name.

The clientele is particularly classier, the view is more aesthetically pleasing (if you ignore the statue of a dog, urinating on one of the trees outside), the mere act of breathing doesn't increase your blood cholesterol, and the manager seems lovely. After waiting patiently for my coffee, typing feverishly away at this epic post, the manager kindly visited my table and apologised for the wait of my coffee and offered to refund it while he made it himself. I was most impressed, considering I had only been waiting about 15-20 minutes, and it's lunchtime. Perhaps he suspected I was a food critic, doing a write-up on his newly-opened enterprise.  Was this exceptionally good service merely a bribe to sway the direction of this piece? Probably not. I look like I got dressed in the dark.

Motivations aside, however, I think I may come back again. And perhaps again, depending on whether or not there's any addictive additives in my latte.

Moving on.

So what of Glee's latest offering last night? Having been a fan since the premiere, I've begrudgingly witnessed one or two disappointing episodes against the backdrop of a deteriorating moral code, but last night's episode was the worst. Was the fact that the episode featured Brittany Spears merely coincidental? Perhaps, but considering the bulk of her repertoire is questionable at best, the show's writers didn't have much to work with.

Unfortunately, the episode was plagued with far too many musical interludes (or 'fantasies', as the story depicted them) brought on by highs sought from an ethically-deficient dentist's nitrous oxide, some of which should really have had Channel Ten reconsidering the show's 7.30pm timeslot.

But censorship aside, I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend for Glee. While the show consistently delivers a number high-calibre musical performances, these have previously been integrated well into the rest of the show, adding to the story-telling experience. Sadly, last night seemed to be a series of performances loosely wrapped together by the barest threads of a storyline.

From a financial, profit-driven perspective, Glee certainly has the power to rake in the dosh far beyond many other TV shows. Further to simply selling a series to a commercial broadcaster, followed by DVDs, Glee's musical numbers (averaging perhaps three per episode) are made available on iTunes as they happen, and are sold in droves. These profits certainly have the incentive to drive the show to focus more on developing the show's musical features than a well conceived storyline, and the royalties obtained by the original artists for the show's recreations must certainly have high-profile pop sensations beating down doors for the opportunity to feature their music. And where profile beats substance, an inundation of questionable content may ensue.

Personally, I hope for better things for Glee. Don't let the musical 'sensation' pull the focus away from developing a good story.

And as for Miss Lea Michele, while I love your voice and your versatility, steer clear of Brittany Spears. You do a lot of things well, but Spears isn't one of them. Don't worry, though; that's a good thing. SG

Anti-Art, Fragmentation & Lady Gaga, Part 2

To briefly summarise my last instalment, I reviewed Francis Schaeffer's notion of fragmentation in society, as reflected particularly in the media of music and art. We saw the expression of the beauty present in the universe reduced to simplistic elements, often arranged in a chaotic manner, which appears to level the playing field between the sublime and the mundane, as far as inherent meaning, purpose and value is concerned.

It should further be noted at this point (or perhaps in my previous post, had I not written it in the wee hours of the morning) some the inconsistencies present in this worldview. We have already seen that the universe cannot simply be a dizzying condensation of chaos and chance, when we consider things like aeronautics, physiology and mathematics. As far as the beauty and inherent value of man is concerned, Schaeffer notes that whilst much of Pablo Picasso's work portrayed people as simplistic and elemental, portraits of those persons close to him retained the detail reflecting the beauty in his subject.

Neither the order nor beauty in the world around us should be denied.

Let's continue.

Schaeffer proceeds to discuss the idea of anti-art; that is, a piece of art created simply to make an intellectual statement, rather than express anything concerning the reality of who people are, nor the fullness of the universe.

Take John Cage's 4'33", (watch it on YouTube) as previously discussed, which he believed to be his most important work. While this 'creation' (using the loosest conceivable definition of the word) clearly communicates Cage's ideas about what music can be, I've just communicated the same idea to you using a few words. What's the difference? Sitting down at a piano and 'actively doing nothing' will get you a little more attention. (I will resist making any direct remarks regarding political publicity at this point)


I'd like to move on to Lady Gaga (who I incidentally learned today is six months younger than I am). Now be aware that these comments are my own; Francis Schaeffer had the pleasure to miss out on the world going Gaga, but then he had ample questionable morality to deal with in his own lifetime.


Despite being a worldwide sensation, I feel Lady Gaga is among those artists who should, if she must, be heard but not seen. While she does not boast a glass-shattering voice (in a good way), there is certainly musical talent there. Lyrically, there is nothing profound in her writing, but little is in pop-music today. Visually, well let's just say that those seeking anything wholesome would be well-advised to gouge out their eyes to save themselves further pain. Much of her costuming I expect pushes the boundaries of even today's lax censorship standards, and many of her music videos are arguably not suitable for general viewing, despite their accessibility.


Now, while I do not want to deny Gaga's musical talent, and label her work as 'anti-art', I do want to consider why she has achieved such worldwide success, to the degree that she has and for so long. Is this because she is a musical sensation; an amazing vocalist and a brilliant lyricist? I don't think she's that great. I think the answer is in her image.


Generally, while pushing the boundaries and bending the rules attracts attention, it's not always accepted at first (Debussy, and in his later years Beethoven, knew this). Outright controversy sells well, however, and Lady Gaga has it in spades. Her image doesn't simply push the boundaries on current trends, but rather takes her on a flying leap across the line to land in the headlines (meat bikinis will do that). And, while she denies that her attire is intended to make any kind of political or sociological statements, but rather express herself as an individual, I question how looks created by a number of different designers and stylists can express a person's own, unique individuality.


Perhaps her outrageous and controversial style is what has kept (and continues to keep) the public eye trained squarely on Gaga, when it would otherwise have moved on to the next global sensation. However, she can only push the boundaries so far to keep its gazed fixed upon her. We can only wait in apprehension to see what's next for the "fame monster". SG