If you haven’t noticed how superb music has been this year then you haven’t listened to a lot of it.

Things started off well, with Mars Volta releasing Bedlam in Goliath to high acclaim. It doesn’t top their 2005 opus France the Mute but…Well…France the Mute is the best musical work in history, so we can forgive them that. Goliath contains their typical proggish glory, but constitutes a development insofar as they demonstrate their ability to write a song that lasts less than ten minutes. Indeed, the results are so good that they got nominated for a Grammy:

Dan le Sac versus Scroobius Pip released the hip-hop album of the decade, Angles:

But that wasn’t enough to get them onto the X Factor:

An interesting development in this years music is the total disintegration of the division between dance and rock. Always a flimsy one it has now dissolved entirely, as the following videos should demonstrate:

Dance bands playing rock? Rock bands playing dance? Nobody can tell, nobody important still thinks it matters.

Another remarkable phenomenon is the sheer weight of fantastic albums released. All of the videos above come from strong albums, with large amounts of great songs instead of the tiresome strong single/filler set-up. Especially worthy of mention here are Late Of The Pier, who with Fantasy Black Channel made one of the most playful and exploratory albums I’ve heard in a long time. It also manages to stage a sonic approximation of an orgasm:

Foals put out quite magnificently, with Antidotes a well crafted, inter-connected piece of tightness which didn’t disappoint despite the (in hindsight not so) absurd expectations built up around it:

Speaking of which, Portishead. How were they supposed to impress after having been away for that long? By released an album like Third.

An even greater surprise than Portishead finally putting out was Mr. Trent Reznor going from “That guy that takes a decade to perfect one drum loop” to “Prolific” in the space of a year. How? Releasing five albums.

Admittedly much of this could have been a consequence of Ghosts not exactly being what the majority of his fanbase wanted (although I for one adore the ambient, abstract moments on Downward Spiral, see them as the highlight and wish that there had been more) but frankly…He’s releasing this stuff for free now. We are in no position to complain.

Slipknot didn’t release their best album by a long shot, but ooh, new masks:

The Kills, however, did:

And then of course there’s Crystal Castles, the band that add further evidence to the theory that Canada must be the origin of the best new band every year, without fail (see also: Arcade Fire, DFA 1979, etc…)

I rarely find myself outright trembling with rage and fear. This, though, managed it:

Could they have found a more unreconstructed example of steaming, greasy excrement? The idiocy on display is commonplace Republicanism; peace through violence, defence through bombing cities full of children to dust, the usual. But the boldness of the hypocrisy took my breath away. Just listen to the smug shitmouth:

Interviewer: Are you worried about the escalating costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I mean, how would we pay for it?

Delegate: We should plant a flag, take the oil, take the money, we deserve reimbursement.

Reimbursement? Reimbursement for what, precisely? You invade a country citing your own country’s defence from weapons you claim an undemocratic dictator foisted on that people; you also claim you’ll shunt off that dictator. You mercilessly bungle that war, to the tune of some 85,000 civilian deaths and leave it with streets dominated by theocratic militias. In short, you do the job for yourself and you do it badly. You have no right to reimbursement.

And the flow of filth goes on unabated. Schwartz feels that it makes perfect sense to actively bomb Iran - that is, take a step past threatening to bomb - on the grounds that Iran might threaten Israel. Note that he doesn’t even try to frame his viciousness as a defence of the bombed, this time; there’s no mention of brutal theocracy as there is by anti-war projects such as HOPOI. He simply sees people he’s never met and likely doesn’t understand, who happen to have been born on the wrong side of the border, and decees they must be flattened. It’s naked, undisguised jingoism.

Politicians are often more restrained by their partisan supporters than by the electorate themselves. Those supporters put the politicians where they were. In McCain’s case, they nominated him. If not for their support, they wouldn’t even be before the electorate. They have to listen to them, day after day, month after month - a practise they only have to repeat for the voters every four years. So, when McCain’s supporters demand the outright obliteration of the Middle East, we know how little restraint he might face should he win the election; none. Isn’t that terrifying?

(Hat-tip: Mr. Eugenides.)

(Or, Palin; A quasi-liveblog)

Oh, but this woman terrifies me:

Sarah Palin gave her first TV interview yesterday. And listen to the language: within the first two minutes, she and McCain are, “on a mission.” That just before a mention of the war. A mission. Where have we heard that before? Missions come from higher powers, and they exist in precious few numbers for the most powerful executive duo on the planet. The electorate would be one, but they’ve not yet granted anyone their support.

Which rather leaves one candidate for Palin’s big boss. I’ll let you guess.

Much of the interview waffles on. Who honestly cares whether Palin thought for an hour or a night before accepting the nomination? But what content there was interested me. She came off spectacularly poorly on foreign policy; faced with a question on whether governing a state close to Russia really qualified as foreign policy experience, Palin just ducked the question and tried to carry on her previous point. She didn’t even try to answer. Surely that just won’t do in a candidacy which tries to attack Obama on the very same point?

The specifics, meanwhile, simply frighten. She pledges to work with foreign nations, for the benefit of all; and next she feels war with Russia might, “perhaps,” be necessary if the Russians prove uncooperative. That’s little more than a desire to control international affairs wrapped in the clothing of diplomatic language. So, on Georgia, business would be as usual - if not worse. On Iraq; the same again. They play that, “Task from God,” clip, and she essentially agrees with herself in less vitriolic terms. She feels nations have a right to, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happinness” - and yet supports Georgia’s right to re-annexe South Ossetia. The Bush Doctrine? Sounds good to her; it just needs better execution. All that went wrong can be put down to, “blunders,” rather than any inherent weakness in the theory.

That sounds rather like the past eight years, doesn’t it? And it rather undermines the other current running through Palin’s script; that she and McCain are candidates of change. What becomes increasingly clear is that Obama won the war of words early on in the campaign. Palin presents herself as a woman who hopes to, “reform,” the, “system,” and bring government, “back on the side of the people.” Someone rather like Obama, in fact. How well that’ll go down given Palin’s repeated overtures to social conservatives and the overt similarities between McCain and Bush’s foreign policies remains to be seen. But it does show the way for Obama; he must present voters a clear choice between himself and McCain, on substantive policy issues. Only by that contrast will the McSame meme take hold, and the cooption of change as a message be stopped.

The pipeline clip, where Palin shows the interviewer an energy project initiated under her, is perhaps the most intelligent element of the interview - on her part. What do you do if you’re accused of inexperience? Show everyone what you’ve done. It isn’t stated, but the very fact that Palin invited the camera crew to Fairbanks indicates that she wants people to know that she is capable of managing major projects. Every second they spend walking around that pipe - and that’s a good three minutes or so - acts, for her, as a rebuke to critics. Never mind that she effectively makes a complete U-turn in that segment, and advocates tearing up a nature reserve for more oil. People remember what they see as much as what they hear - and what they see (Palin hopes) is evidence of competence.

The undertones, meanwhile, seem vaguely conventional. She’s proud of her son for his, “strong, independent,” decision to go to Iraq; a dogwhistle to Republicans, that she has a family and believes in Iraq. God features more than a little; however much she denies that she thinks she knows the word of God, the repeated mention of a, “task,” or a, “mission,” clearly implies she feels some higher being wants a Republican presidency. All that mention of the constitution and Lincoln, meanwhile, her desire to bring the right of, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to the world serves a similar purpose. It attempts to provide a noble narrative for McCain’s campaign; that of the Founding Fathers, and their ideals.

Does the interview tell us anything about McCain/Palin? Certainly. McCain appears to have had a long term purpose in his selection of Palin; as a direct answer to Obama. Throughout the interview, Palin attempted to coopt Obama’s message of change, without any deviation from Republican party line. She talked a lot about the need for new tactics; but at the same time, she resolutely clung to the Bush Doctrine and dropped conservative buzzwords like the bombs she’d see piling on Tehran. So, the intent looks to be dress McCain’s message of complete policy inertia in the fluffy mask of change which Obama made so popular. And Palin is the young, photogenic face which McCain hopes that message will become convincing.

Perhaps that wolf in sheeps’ clothing pitbull in lipstick metaphor was more approriate than Palin realised.

At Tony Blair’s last party conference in 2006, he delivered a dead-straight attack on the Tories. It was a very fair comment then, and it remains very fair today. I just wonder whether Gordon will take note…

Sometimes I am so glad that satire exists.  In this case, because the boundaries of satire demonstrate clearly that this video is far, far beyond them.

Via Mike Rouse.  It’s a couple of months old, too, but who’s complaining?

This floated my way through an e-mail. Via, I’m told, a site I wouldn’t approve of:

Does Eden remind you of anyone, I wonder?

How did I manage to miss this:

See also the series of videos that have followed it. Especially the Blue Suede Shoes one…

Republicans shouldn’t try to be hip:

What’s more cringeworthy - the attempt to connect with the future with bad computer noises, or the invitation to the “party?” Or perhaps McCain’s just looking for someone to inspire his campaign. Or provide an excuse for it…

(Hat-tip, to my shame)

And now McCain’s latest effort:

Notice anything? Yes, that’s right. It’s not very good - again. The actual video is simply dull, visually. Very blocky, dark and far less intelligent than Obama’s. The comparison that springs most readily to mind is a Japanese hybrid car advert, not a brilliant piece of political propaganda. The closest this comes to actual visual or emotional manipulation is the relentless focus on technology and space - signalling a forward looking McCain quite at odds with that white.

White hair McCain seems very reluctant to display, mind. Compare Obama’s presence in his spots - young, smiling and all over the place - with McCain’s gloomy avoidance of the camera. Just two, short appearances in this, and short and sombre at that. It’s almost as if he’s afraid the voters will see him.

But perhaps that’s the point. The video’s underlying message is far more concerning. On the surface rides the usual bumpf; America is wonderful, McCain wants to keep it that way, he’s a patriot. To summarise: Blah. But underneath that comes the real message.

Observe the constant emphasis in the script:

American technology protected the world. We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: Energy Security. A comprehensive bipartisan plan to: Lower prices at the pump; Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling; And champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs.

Putting country first. McCain.

Emphasis, as usual, mine. Just look at it; over and over, a focus on resolution and security. McCain will provide a, “purpose,” for America. He’ll, “reduce dependence,” on foreign oil, and so increase America’s economic security. And he’ll cross boundaries as a, “bipartisan,” leader.

The final picture: a strong, resolute leader who’ll work across traditional boundaries for the nations’ good. A uniter, not a divider (sound familiar?). And completely uncontroversial, and not a right wingnut you need to worry about.

And, unfortunately for McCain, it’ll flop. The claims he makes can be scotched in easy terms. The ad says he’s a resolute man who’ll keep at a task until it’s done; which, naturally, explains why this is his third slogan in as many ads. He’s an uncontroversial bipartisan - whose last spot was an attack ad. He isn’t a rightist loon, the ad implies - just one who wouldn’t be averse to, say, bombing Iran.

Oh, and the “uniter not a divider” bit. Already gone, I’m afraid. Change and unity have been Obama’s message from the start, articulated in soaring rhetoric; McCain is a member of the (conservative) Republican Party. That he’s been forced to snatch the meme for himself suggests one thing only - that he’s already lost the election on his own views, and must find someone else’s.

So, he’ll lose?

And the theme of today’s video is - political positioning! (duh?)

Note the careful imagery again: Barack in shirt-sleeves, because he’s not a stuffy office boy but a man of the people. Barack as a young man, because he’s not a 71 year old who won’t see his second term. Barack at a community meeting, because he’s a man of the people. Barack on the phone (at 3AM?), concentrating - because he’s a hard worker, who’ll never let you down. Barack signing a law, because he’s got some experience in Washington and isn’t the callow youth of Republican propaganda. Barack with workers, smiling, because he’s a man of the people. Barack with children, because he loves them as much as you. Barack talking to workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack shaking hands with more workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack hugging an old (working) lady, because he’s a caring and happy man of the people who everyone loves.

Conclusion: Barack Obama is a kind, friendly, hard-working man of the people, and not at all the aloof, inexperienced elitist of Clintonite agitprop.

And so on. And the message of the script? Much the same:

Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss.

Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Emphasis mine. The message boils down to:

Barack Obama is a hard-working, ordinary guy. He worked his way through college; hard-working. And he’d rather work hard for others; turned down big money.

He’s a man of the people. He gave them what they wanted; but didn’t let them lounge on the dole like that nasty quasi-socialist the Malkinites claim he’d be. No, he protects American workers, and loves children. A Man of the People, and a Patriot.

So, a message totally consistent with his last ad. There, he talked to camera, espoused mainstream values, and painted himself a man of the people. Here, he protects workers, works hard, loves his countrymen - and paints himself as a man of the people. And rebuffs accusations of cold, unpatriotic, middle-class elitism from Malkin et al.

It’s pure political positioning. Obama needs to erect a break against shit slung by Republicans who smear him as foreign, aloof and socialist; so he emphasises hard work, “American values” and his populism. Vacuous? Mostly. Lacking in a policy message? Certainly. Dull? For anyone across the Atlantic, very probably.

But that’s not the point. 30 seconds isn’t enough to preach a sermon, but it’s enough to give an impression - and that’s what Obama’s doing. And it looks like he’s hit the right (hah…) spots so far…