Elite Online Magazine is a variety magazine for men. Amongst this issue our authors Alex Campbell and Mark Hammond have been featured and myself (Lina.) Additionally, there is a pretty good interview of Mike Gatto and some other interesting tidbits.

Additionally Elite Online features lots of semi-naked women, amusing horoscopes, hilarious diaries and other news which are important for the Northeast. So go check it out!

I’ve toyed with the idea of writing this post for well over a week now… How to write informatively about this infallible group when all I really want to say is a resounding “OMG?!” The night at the Sage was undoubtedly one of the finest musical experiences I’ve ever had, Mogwai managed to keep us all drawn in and hypnotised for a good 1hr 40 mins and if I’m honest, I could have stayed all night. Kicking things off beautifully with ‘White Noise’ from their latest album (Hardcore Will Never Die, But You Will), the group had us all mesmerised with tracks spanning across their impressive back catalogue of 7 studio albums.

My personal highlights were ‘Cody’, ‘Letters to the Metro’, ‘How to be a Werewolf’ and their incredible encore performances of ‘Helicon 1′ and ‘Xmas Steps’. All in all however, I can honestly say that I’ve never been so moved or entertained at a live event.  The entire audience fell into a respectful and appreciative silence from the start and the very gracious Stuart Braithwaite was extremely thankful for the rapturous applause after each track. I’ve sifted through various live performances of  Helicon 1 to find a one to match the awesome show at the Sage and this will hopefully give you an idea, it’s ‘New Paths to Helicon part 1′, which is a longer, even more intoxicating version of what I saw last week:

Those of you who’ve been to a show in Hall 1 at the Sage before will comprehend how jaw-dropping the entire venue is, with superb acoustics and top-spec equipment. Again, Stuart was very complimentary, rating the Sage as one of “the most interesting venues” they’ve ever played. The intricate elements of their performance were enhanced by the surroundings and acoustics, for example the crystal clear violins and distorted vocals which reverberated through the room wouldn’t have worked in a venue like the Academy. The whole experience was so astoundingly brilliant that for about 3 days afterwards I found myself in a post-Mogwai depression, so much so that I tweeted Stuart himself (@plasmatron FYI) to request that they do a pit-stop in Gateshead soon for another show (as yet, I’m still awaiting reply, maybe he’s just thinking about it…)

My parting comment is merely this: if you ever get the opportunity to see Mogwai live then I implore you to do so. Their music has spanned over 2 decades and shifts seamlessly between beautiful tranquil guitars and electronica to ear-numbing white noise with heady bass lines and even further on to instrumental metal. It sounds slightly clichéd but each person in a Mogwai audience will take away their own experience, nothing is generic or contrived. It is this charm and innovation which will see them through decades to come.

Expect an upcoming Mogwai review within the next couple of days, too! Please, what would like us to know/review/publish? Just e-mail or comment

Historically, systems of musical notation have governed musical practice, especially in the Western tradition. When I say ‘musical notation’ I am talking broadly, as in ‘the act, process, method, or an instance of representing by a system or set of marks, signs, figures, or characters’.

In other words, this would include both the score, a system of guitar tablature, or a series of chords. It is basically all systems that enable the re-presentation of intended auditory form – non-improvised music. This method has come to be understood as the essence of music, or the a priori truth of music – its original form.  Not only is this inaccurate, as engagement with sounds would have inevitably been improvised before systems were devised to re-present such engagement, but it is also deeply problematic in terms of the wider participation in music. However, it needs to be said that there is no problem with this method in itself. The problems I have with using this method are when it is used to define and colonise music itself.

The reason for this is that it necessarily has to utilise generic frameworks to get the job done, and in doing so it has to reduce the difference and individuality of the expression. In other words, it has to reduce the difference of each constituent element into one shared root framework – the key of G for instance. Everything, and everybody connected to that performance then, has to have the difference and possibilities of their expression reduced to that fundamental and pre-meditated framework, and what is being valued is a performer’s ability to be restrained and stick to the framework rather than to express their distinctive character. For too long, this method has governed and colonised the entire musical environment, and consequently narrowed the participation and reduced the difference of that environment. In this method, we engage in a sharing of sameness that is contrary to how existence mutates and becomes.

On the other hand Improvisation actively expands difference by allowing each independent expression in the performance to express its difference and its possibilities, without the demands and reduction of a fundamental framework (besides the ‘framework’ that there are no frameworks).

The practice of improvisation is always in the process of opening itself for change at the point of trajectory.  This results in a situation where several different performers could be improvising in the same room, and while one may be playing piano in key, in tune, and in time, another could be squawking and making animal sounds, while another could be quietly meditating. Improvisation allows for the performance to expose the contradictions and fissures of each element’s difference and possibilities. It is a pluralistic and diverse practice that is potentially radically inclusive, for it gives the most encouragement to expanding the difference of the musical environment. With improvisation, we engage in a sharing of difference that expresses how existence mutates and becomes.

A key point that I want to get across here is that I absolutely don’t want to set up a kind of good/evil dichotomy between orthodox systems and improvisation. What my point attempts to articulate is that an over-reliance on a particular way of making music has governed the entire environment and made it incredibly difficult for participation in music to reach its potential.

While I enjoy listening to a lot of that type of music, and believe it has a positive role to play in people’s lives, I also think that we could be doing a lot more to widen the participation of music, and improvisation is a potentially powerful outlet for that end.

Take music education for instance. If you watch a child engage with their newly found environment, it becomes very obvious that that entire environment can be used for musical ends. Nevertheless, after being indoctrinated with various musical interventions in their early years, when they enter school, they begin to get told that actually, music is not that chair, or that table, or that bin, but it is this extremely narrow set of notes, and chords, and set of protocols that have been handed down to us through the Western art tradition.

This is disappointing, because children have to face a lot of tough competitive activities in their subjects at school, and music could serve as an outlet for a non-competitive activity that allows them to express themselves in ways that release their individuality and distinctiveness. Music can be enjoyable and be about expression for expression’s sake. The most effective way for that to happen is through improvisation, but it will only happen if that practice is properly developed and allowed to cultivate itself in communities and establishments, so that the musical environment as a whole can expand its difference and widen its participation.

.

I go to gigs to experience my favourite artists playing my favourite songs in a comfortable setting. The flashing lights coddle my attention when it starts to wane, the bass shakes my body constantly so I never forget where I am.

The other concert goers fix me to one geographical place restricting my dance movement, and the performer that I’ve seen in videos on posters and on TV constantly reminds me of their now immediate proximity. We cheer after every song, but it is not forced; we do it out of sheer adoration for the experience makers. At the end there is a sense of unfinished joy, we definitely want more.

Why can’t local bands instill this kind of euphoria? Is it a question of more or less ‘talent’? Or could it be the songs just aren’t as good? I’d say one of the main differences is fiscal, not philosophical.

‘Music’ as socio-cultural monetary phenomena exists beyond ‘talent’ in a small fiscal prison made of pound coins and sex.

The financial distinctions between ‘local’, ‘national’ and ‘global’ translate themselves into imaginary social distinctions that separate one from another.

Global acts, such as Beyonce, John Mayer, Greenday and Coldplay need huge financial backing for their stage gear/band/crew compared to a local act that might need a car to take a guitar amp (the band will probably get the bus or walk) or a drum kit to a gig.

The locations of gigs inevitably vary also, as music largely exists as a monetary and political device; the bigger crowd requires a larger venue, and thus more money to sustain the gig.

These large gigs have also been greatly romanticized in mainstream media such as films, games and books.

So is it a case that our ‘appetites’ have been spoiled by the large lobster dinner that is large-scale gigs for us to become excited about small, local based ones? There are definitely exceptions to this statement, but holistically society requires that gigs be of a certain ‘standard’ to even qualify as a gig sometimes. What does this mean for local bands? Are we doomed? Or are we saved? In Marxists terms, can we revolutionise the means of producing great local gigs?

A while back, I read an article about an upcoming ‘Electronic Music Event’, and I read one of the most ridiculous comments ever. “The Rave scene is not the drug scene, people need to stop trying to turn it into one.” The statement was laughed at and little was thought about it until likeminded people were found.

“Drugs need to stay away from the raves. They take away from the spirit of them.”

Wait, what?

Drugs have always been a big player in many musical scenes.

From ancient drum circles, shamans consumed hallucinogenic substances. Less than a hundred years ago, swing dancing was powered by cocaine. The hippie movement is nearly inseparable from its marijuana and LSD.

Now there’s a new modern group of peace loving, long haired youths preaching messages of Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect (PLUR). This relatively new subculture is quite like the hippie movement, though it isn’t nearly as big. They dress how they want, they’re anti-authority, and music is essential to their lives.

Much like the hippies before them, they have their drugs. Acid and marijuana are still popular, with marijuana invading every single music scene because of its effect of aiding people’s ability to appreciate music. A raver’s drug arsenal is just a bit bigger due to the introduction of new drugs. MDMA is the iconic raver drug, better known as Ecstasy.

The pounding bass, the flashing lights, the glowsticks, are all essentials at a rave that many people enjoy. MDMA increases the ability to appreciate the previously mentioned items hundreds of times. There’s no question that it’s a staple that turns raves from a nice social setting to mind blowing events. In addition, the flooding of serotonin produces feelings of tranquility and compassion for other living beings. The “Peace and Love” that the previous generation preached on and on about now comes in 100mg tablets.

As long as drugs are available, they’re apart of the rave scene. Hell, they’re apart of any music scene.

In a lot of my songs I critique the consumer society in which we live and the model of cyclical consumption on which our economic system depends.   In Consumer society an increasing consumption of goods is economically beneficial as the more goods that are produced, sold and consumed the more the economic growth.

Refer to the diagram above which shows cyclical consumption at work.  As you can see The Employer or company and the employees of a particular company are completely dependent on the process of consumer purchasing for wages and profit.  If less people began to purchase and consume the products or services provided by the company than the companies profits would decrease and they may have to lay off some of there employees, this obviously has negative results for the economy as a whole.

As economic growth is constantly needed to maintain the system it is beneficial to have a populace who rely on the purchasing of more and more commodities to provide well-being and happiness and who believe that the more they have, or the more that they consume the better that their lives will be.  This means that people must be encouraged to look outside of themselves for a source of fulfilment and enrichment in their lives.  On the other hand this means that those are content with what they have and those who look within themselves for fulfilment and identity are actually detrimental to the economic system.

Of course, I cannot claim to be performing purely anti-consumerist music as the music that I compose follows a lot of the protocols associated with consumerism.  I compose mainly in the western standard tuning, I write in a verse chorus popular song structure and I often release my music as the neatly packaged e.p.  I also compose various styles of instrumentals which i sometimes sell for film and TV.

Of course you could argue that such irony and contradiction within my musical approach nullifies the messages found in my lyrical content .

For example how can i claim to preach anti-consumer messages yet still sell CDs or perform in pay per entry venues?  But to be honest I see composing and performing as I do not as much as an anti-consumerist statement but instead as being anti-catalystic (in apposition to the theory that an external catalyst is necessary)

The best example I can give to demonstrate my theory is a real life event which I witnessed last week.  I saw a couple of kids jumping in and out of puddles with massive smiles on there faces.  There mother told them off and pulled them over to the side.  She then walked them over to Fenwick’s window and pointed up at Santa Claus holding a bag full or goodies in his right hand.

Through the process of ‘growing up’ these kids will learn that as adults there is no enjoyment to be had jumping in and out of puddles.  They must for wait for multiple branches of criteria to be met before fun can be contemplated.

Has the whistle blown yet? Has the match kicked off yet? Have the band started playing yet? Do the shops have a sale on?  Is it you Birthday? Do you have a reason to celebrate your existence? Is it Christmas?

I can’t admire the dead, the lifeless products in a shop window because the beauty is in the child and not the window.