Posts Tagged ‘rants’

Prêt à tuer

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

I was in Prêt à manger the other day, and the counter assistant (as she had been bidden by management, no doubt) started asking me with fake enthusiasm what I was doing in the area etc.

‘Oh research,’ she beamed, ‘how interesting! What subject? Ah! Education, how interesting. Just education generally, or some special subject in education?

‘Music education’, I replied. She might have replied ‘Oh cool’, and carried on. But instead, her face fell, and suddenly, her training and happy smile deserted her.

‘Eurgh’, she said, ‘I always hated music at school. I always think of music teachers as being, like, forty, and living alone with a cat.’

‘Really?’ I said, ‘that doesn’t fit any of my fellow students. Most of them look pretty cool, actually’

‘Yes, but if you think back to what your teachers were like when you were young.’

When I was young. She made it sound as if it must be so far back I could hardly remember. I was on the point of saying ‘Oh, yes, actually now you mention it’, but then remembered that wasn’t true. There were a few teachers who were mad or depressed or best left alone, but mostly my teachers were a pretty impressive lot. If we’d used the word then, I would even have said some of them were cool.

When I thought of that, this spinster-phobic waitress suddenly seemed very uncool. It was definitely not a good look, to be uncooled by your own coolness.

Ah well, that’s customer service for you.

  • Share/Bookmark

Johann Strauss the African

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Andre Rieu’s album of Strauss Waltzes and other bon-bons, Forever Vienna, is number 1 in the classical album charts this year, and beat Susan Boyle’s album in the top ten of the pop album charts.  This isn’t  particularly fresh news, even though the BBC only reported it today: the Telegraph had the same story on 18th January.

It’s interesting how this story has been kept out of the mainstream media, but not altogether surprising: it’s just not damn cool enough. Philip Tagg, musicologist and specialist in popular music studies delivered a wonderful speech in 2000  called ‘High and low, Cool and uncool, music and knowledge: Conceptual falsifications and the study of popular music’ in which he showed how popular music studies is prone to a ‘cool’ agenda where music which is genuinely popular doesn’t get studied because it’s not ‘cool’.  On a straw poll he conducted at the conference, he found that there was only a 27% likelihood of the Blue Danube being studied on the popular music curriculum (compared to 92% for the Sex Pistols  God Save The Queen). Rieu’s first album in 1995 apparently beat Michael Jackson’s in the European charts, but that’s not going to be a popular story. How uncool does that make us. All those ‘Cool Britannia’ years, with MPs singing pop songs and inviting rock stars to No. 10 were a misrepresentation on every level: they should really have had Susan Boyle and Andre Rieu in Downing Street.

What I like to believe about this story is that it shows just how important the body in music is. “Waltzes were not meant to be conducted,” [Rieu] says firmly. “I lead with my bow, my head, my whole body, just as Johann Strauss did.” (source).  Will ’serious’ music ever get this kind of audience, without some kind of movement involved? Did ballet evolve as a means of making up for the boredom of sitting in the dark watching an orchestra?

Perhaps the most challenging thing here is the racist stereotype of the starched white urban European compared to the globally southern native, in touch with their body, a Descartian split across racial lines with the European as the brain, and the African as the body.  Heinrich Laube, describing  Johann Strauss I in 1833 wrote:

The man is black as a Moor; his hair is curly; his mouth is melodious, energetic, his lip curls, his nose is snub… Typically African too is the way he conducts his dances; his own limbs no longer belong to him when the desert-storm of his waltz is let loose; his fiddle-bow dances with his arms; the tempo animates his feet; the melody waves champagne glasses in his  face; the ostrich takes a swift run preliminary to beginning his  flight . . . The devil is abroad.

From Jacob, H. E. (1940) Johann Strauss father and son: A century of light music. (Wolff, M., Trans.) New York: Greystone Press. Available from Internet Archive.

As Dahlhaus wrote in The Idea of Absolute Music, our concept of what music was in the 19th century is skewed by the fact that we got aesthetically fixated in the 20th century on ‘absolute music’, whereas in the nineteenth century this was just an ‘enclave’ as Dahlhaus puts it, in a mass of what we’d call popular classics – opera, romances, virtuoso pieces and salon music and so on.

So perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised if Strauss makes it to the pop charts. In the wider scheme of things, Strauss played by a violinist who moves is probably going to be more popular than rock music played by someone who stands still, because we like movement. The popular/classical divide is a misleading category, and it’s the omission of the body that misleads, as this story illustrates beautifully.

  • Share/Bookmark

1984 comes to 2010 – schools, IT and BETT

Saturday, January 16th, 2010

BETT 2010 at Olympia

Spent the afternoon at BETT yesterday, a trade show for educational technology. One reason for going was to drop in on Andrew Holdsworth’s Percy Parker’s Flying Bathtub, just published by Scholastic, and very nice it looks and sounds too.

But most of BETT I found profoundly worrying. I don’t have figures, but it seemed to be predominantly men touting software packages and ’solutions’ for schools. Every other stand seemed to be about protecting, preventing, surveillance, policing, managing, storing, and even ‘performance managing’. This program will automatically text all your truants and their parents; this fingerprinting device will register your child (“biometric multilesson registration and cashless catering” was one of the more 1984-ish captions), this will keep your children safe from unsuitable internet sites, this hardware will back up all your data and provide a network for your school. Online assessment, online registration, automatic this, multi-that.

With a very, very few exceptions, I had almost no sense of teaching, learning, teachers and pupils, intellectual curiosity, or  any of the rich human interaction that goes on in learning.  Instead, it seemed I was at a trade fair selling expensive ’solutions’ that appeared to criminalize an entire generation of children, or treat them as a workforce that needed managing, assessing and controlling. An image began to emerge of a child tightly bound in a technological network of biometric data, they and their families summoned and communicated with by text, every online transaction prescribed or prevented, stored and tracked electronically by an emergent army  of male IT personnel, every academic subject reduced to an onscreen interaction with predigested, generic content.  Media-rich, yes, but piss-poor as human interaction.

I’m not usually prone to technological determinism, the idea that society is helpless in the face of the ‘power’ of technology to shape and control it, but I came away from BETT wondering whether we do all this stuff to kids because we can, not because we must. And in any case,  there were plenty of technological determinists touting their wares at BETT: this software will help you build an online global learning community. Really? Anyone who’s tried to run an online forum knows that it’s people and people alone who build communities, all the software in the world can’t do that for you.  Nobody buys a bassoon thinking it will make music for them, but people seem to fall over themselves to buy into technology that needs staff, time, expertise and commitment, not just a power supply.

My final rant? As I was walking around seeing all this stuff about protection, walled-gardens, security, safety and so-on, I had my barcoded badge scanned aggressively and without my permission by at least two staff on the stands, data-mugging in broad daylight.

  • Share/Bookmark

The bit the Tories left out about teaching in Singapore

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

Amused, in a despairingly cynical way, to see that the best the Tories can come up with as an educational policy is to give teachers the power to seize iPods. Tories would also “introduce a longer term plan to attract a higher grade of graduate into the teaching profession. [Shadow education secretary Michael] Gove is looking at Singapore, where only the top 30% of graduates are allowed to become teachers.”

The bit they’ve left out about the Singapore system is that the Ministry of Education in Singapore offers a bonded system (the MOE Teaching Scholarship), where they’ll fund the teacher’s entire degree, including maintenance and flights if you study abroad in return for a promise of at least 4-6 years service in the Singapore education. If you fail the degree, or don’t fulfil the bond, you are liable for liquidated damages.

One of Obama’s education advisors has been telling the new President similar good things about Singapore (Obama education advisor thinks U.S. schools could take a lesson from Finland and Singapore) but they seem to have a very different take on the story to the UK tories. How could such a generous scheme get turned into ‘We’ll only let the top 30% of graduates into teaching’, with no mention of funding or context? Or is the power to confiscate iPods the thing that is going to attract all those high-flying graduates?

  • Share/Bookmark

Michael Phelps: why I’m not disappointed

Friday, February 6th, 2009

From Reason.com, What Michael Phelps Should Have Said. The article is what I would like to have said, only Radley Balko’s said it better.

I’m not given to having sporting heroes, but being a swimmer, if I have one, it’s Michael Phelps.  And he’s still a hero, despite the best efforts of the News of the World.

I for one am not in the slightest bit ‘disappointed’ in him for the bong incident (USA Swimming have suspended him for 3 months to  “send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people”).  How could you be disappointed in someone who has already achieved so much, they are out of anyone’s league to start with. Whose business is it anyway? And frankly, if you can win 8 gold medals, and smoke cannabis, you should probably get a 9th.

He’s 23. He’s an international hero, not for clean living, but for swimming. Leave him alone. Kellogg’s have dropped him as a sponsor after February. Probably a good thing. I’d be more disappointed if he continued to mislead kids into thinking that it was cornflakes that contributed to his success. If this stops people eating cornflakes, good.

  • Share/Bookmark

Multi-tasking, cognitive load, mobiles

Sunday, February 1st, 2009

Since my previous rant on multi-tasking, I’ve discovered that the key word I needed to prise this issue open was ‘cognitive load’, which I discovered while monotasking (reading a book on music and psychology).  So for those who want a weapon against the tide of pop-psych multit-taskers, read this article from Psychology Matters (Multi-tasking -  switching costs). If you can’t be bothered, here’s the important bit:

Understanding the hidden costs of multitasking may help people to choose strategies that boost their efficiency – above all, by avoiding multitasking, especially with complex tasks. (Throwing in a load of laundry while talking to a friend will probably work out all right.) For example, losing just a half second of time to task switching can make a life-or-death difference for a driver on a cell phone traveling at 30 MPH. During the time the driver is not totally focused on driving the car, it can travel far enough to crash into an obstacle that might otherwise have been avoided.

American Psychological Association, March 20, 2006

Yes, laundry and phoning = OK. Texting while driving, or a doctor looking at a computer screen while trying to talk to patient = not OK, on many levels. And, actually, even just walking down a crowded street listening to music doesn’t bode well for your ability to see and avoid other humans.

  • Share/Bookmark

Multi-tasking? No thanks.

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009
What your brain looks like multi-tasking, I bet.

What your brain looks like multi-tasking, I bet.

Multi-schmulti

“I’m just multi-tasking” is a phrase that annoys me like no other.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man use the word about himself, but then ‘multi-tasking’, according to women’s magazines is what women can do better than men, so it’s usually used as a weapon of barely masked sexism. It offends me.  For one thing, if you want to believe that you (as a woman) are better at multi-tasking than men, then you have to subscribe to the kind of gender-stereotyping that would be considered out of order, if it were used the other way round. I can multitask, thank you very much. I can cook. I’m good at all kinds of things which are conventionally considered ‘feminine’ in our society (but not others) including music, and I can do many of them all at once.

Although I hate the term, I have been multi-tasking recently. I’ve just spent the best part of two days fighting HTML, plug-ins, hyperlinks, CSS while keeping mind and body on a host of other things too. I was bemused to wake up feeling slightly resentful and empty afterwards, until I realised that however engrossing  this diversion from my usual diet of philosophy, psychology, aesthetics & music education for my MA might be,  it is all rather mindless, compared with the job of thinking. I could quite easily watch Brick Lane while I was doing precarious things with .htaccess files and php on a server, send emails, Google stuff and edit web-pages.  But I couldn’t watch telly and read a book, or consider a problem in aesthetics, or have a focused conversation with someone.  My resentment and emptiness was a direct result of not having time and space to think properly about stuff in the way I’d like. The only reason I could multi-task is because the tasks themselves were low-level and impersonal, hence the disatisfaction.

Don’t mind me. At all.

“I’m just multi-tasking” is 21st-century womanspeak for “I’m not listening to you”, or “Carry on talking while I do something that I consider more important”, the unspoken insult, traditionally, of men to women. Added to that, it means ‘And I’m better than you, because women can do this stuff, and you can’t.” So look at in another way, and “I’m just multi-tasking” means “I’m just an unreconstructed selfish man in a dress.  I have decided to adopt traditional male attitudes of discounting, ignoring and supercilious behaviour, and justify them with pop-psychology which I read in those women’s magazines that rationalize my current beliefs”. If you were in a room with your (male) boss and they started shuffling papers, tidying up and answering emails, you’d think “OK, this is a signal for me to go”.  “I’m just multi-tasking” means “Please stay so I can do you the dishonor of not really listening”. And, get this, half the time when people I know say they’re multitasking, I have to keep repeating myself, or give up trying to explain anything complex, or which requires sensitive attention to detail.

Sexist? Moi?

Now, before you accuse me of sexism, the point is that of all the people I know who are excellent listeners, who take time not just to listen to what you have to say but the way you say it, and who observe the non-verbal signals, and weigh this all up before continuing the conversation in a relaxed and meaningful way, the majority are women.  Most of the people I know who think that other people deserve time, consideration, focus and attention, are women. Most of my friends  who know how to have a conversation which is co-operative and explorative, rather than the parallel re-telling of anecdotes, are women. I’m just saying that if you really want to continue gender stereotyping, good listening is a classier female trait than ‘multi-tasking’.  Polite people, men and women, say ‘I’m afraid I’ve got rather a lot to do, but if you don’t mind me doing this while we talk, we could try and talk about it now’.

Glorious mono

But my point isn’t really about gender or stereotypes, it’s about the forgotten quality of the offline, analogue, monotasking world. Since returning to study after all these years, I’ve re-discovered the joy of reading & thinking. Stimulate your brain in the right way, and you simply can’t multitask, and why would you want to? When I read about ‘today’s children’ watching telly, Facebooking, downloading music, texting their friends, and Googling all at the same time, I don’t think this is particularly extraordinary.  I do this all the time. It’s not just for kids. But all of those things are low-level tasks, that’s why you can do them all together.  But you can’t apply the concept of ‘multi-tasking’ to any old set of tasks, just as you can’t stuff your washing machine with 3 weeks worth of washing, just because it’s a washing machine.

Multi-tasking kills

What pressed the final button in my brain and made me write this rant, is that for the bazillionth time since I’ve been riding a bike in London, I’ve nearly killed some poor Wandsworth baby, because its mother decided to use the pushchair as a kind of mine detector, thrusting it ahead of her with one hand into the road to test for passing traffic, while using the other hand to hold a mobile to her ear. Because she’s listening to the conversation or talking, she doesn’t hear anything less than a bus or juggernaut coming her way, and since most people are right-handed, she’s holding the phone to her right ear and facing away from the oncoming traffic (me).  This isn’t multi-tasking, it’s madness.

  • Share/Bookmark