Crappy heterosexuality

Heterosexuality has it’s rewards, but these very rewards are crappy. It’s the primitive urge and appreciation of the female human form, which in itself is wonderful. I believe in being open with people. So, I have the desire to tell every attractive woman I meet how beautiful they look. I don’t actually do this because to be told this something by men whilst walking down the street minding your own business is annoying and very easily becomes harassment with repetition. In any case, how a woman looks, in terms of whether their physical form is attractive to someone or not, is largely outside of their control. It would be amazing to be able to complement people on contents of their soul, but this is unknown without getting to know the person. I’d love to talk to get to know, but there isn’t enough time to talk to everybody.

If this wasn’t bad enough, the primitive part of the male heterosexual brain is constantly assessing the female form and desiring a sexual encounter. It’s really annoying, it gets in the way of genuine conversation. for example you can be having a perfectly pleasant conversation and for a split second the primitive brain takes over and sneaks a furtive glance at a part of the female anatomy, often at inappropriate times.

One doesn’t want to deny ones own sexuality, but it gets in the way of other functions, allowing it free rein makes one very creepy. There seem to be many men who get around this by using a variety of strategies to conceal these feelings, I don’t like this as it is simply dishonest.

I  want to form committed serious relationships with women with reciprocated desires. If there are no reciprocated desires, then friendships can then develop. The sexual desire for female friends of mine passes over a short time, because the primitive urge learns that an intimate sexual relationship is not going to happen. I still know that person concerned are physically attractive, but without the urges. The basic attraction and the intellectual attraction are actually entirely separate aspects of the person.

There seems to be generally a lack of understanding amongst many women of this basic male sexuality. there seem two main strands: One, that once a chap expresses sexual attraction that it is always there and that it doesn’t change, that the chap is always seeking something. Two, that even if in a committed relationship the chap will still have the primitive brain sizing up other women and this is entirely separate to the commitment to the relationship. I do find that women who have had issues around being an outsider tend to have a better appreciation of the differences in the opposite gender.

the other problem is the ruddy brain chemistry, once the though of being attracted to someone exists, some rather basic chemicals get into the brain, causing restrictions of access to the parts of the mind that are non-primitive. This is so irritating as it’s kind of the one aspect of yourself that should control and suppress in non-sexual situations.

Final point, sometimes the fact that some women happen to be attractive to a large number of heterosexual men and some to a small proportion , tends to exaggerate different aspects of their personality, and usually in a negative direction.

I would love to hear any perspectives from others of any sexuality.


Growing up as a member of minority groups is difficult, because there is a sense that you are not ‘normal’, so there is a desire to discover what ‘normal’ is. There is a sense of questioning why you are different and a sense of anger that your way, your needs are not tolerated. I struggled with this until I accepted that there is nothing actually wrong with me and accepted myself. The sense of anger comes after reflections that what you are isn’t immoral, so other people shouldn’t be prejudiced against you, yet there continue to be examples of other people not understanding.

There is no such thing as a ‘normal’ person. The majority of people are in the majority on any individual facet of life. some people feel less prejudice due to who they are. However some minorities face differing levels of challenge. Two ‘extreme’ examples:

People over 6′ tall: These people live in a world of discomfort because every standard chair and desk is too small and too low. In society generally, the needs of this minority are not fully appreciated, but few are actively prejudiced against tall people.

Paedophiles: Some peoples minds are such that they are sexually attracted to children. Sex with children is morally one of the worst, if not the worst, abuses humans beings are capable of. If the paedophile is fully aware of themselves and reflected that they should not under any circumstances act on these desires, then there is no problem. What is a problem are the societal barriers for such a person to seek help from a wider misunderstanding society, for help in coming to terms with this facet of themselves. There is a lot of prejudice towards such people

The point being that actually there is no real difference between these examples, yet society in general accepts tall people more readily than the paedophile.

Tolerance is essentially about awareness that everybody is different and to accept everybody without prejudice.

I am reminded of the biblical story of Sodom (Genesis 19). In this story, two angels visit the city of Sodom. The angels are welcomed by Lot, but the remainder of the people in the city seek to do the visitors harm. God removes Lot and his family to safety then unleashes fire and brimstone upon the city of Sodom. My interpretation of the story is that the people of this city have become immoral and sin has become accepted as ‘normal’ in the city. The people of Sodom are intolerant of the visitors as failure to welcome guests is itself an example of intolerance.

When I first read this chapter I was unaware of the connection between the name, Sodom and sodomy, a reference to homosexual practice. Indeed some people interpret this story as ‘evidence’ that homosexuality is a sin against God. This interpretation has led to a long history of discrimination of homosexuals, when actually the message of the story is one of tolerance and the importance of reflecting morally upon ones actions.

I find it strange that as an individual it has taken me some years to accept myself for who I am and be happy. it is better to be open and listen, so that you can understand yourself and other people can understand you (but also to be respectful when people don’t understand you). Yet it has taken society much longer to accept minority sexualities, gender equality, racial equality and many many other minorities. There is still far too much intolerance in the world. Sadly there is still intolerance within Christianity, a force whose message is the promotion of tolerance.

Creating Art and Education

I am delving into the question of what creativity is, whether it exists at all. This raises the question of what art itself is. I have this idea that creation and perception of art are almost opposites: In creation the intellectual idea is transcribed into artistic/emotional form by the artist. Whereas the perceiver senses the emotion and then rationalises the emotions to an intellectual idea, which may or may not be similar to the artists idea.

So what is this concept of an ‘intellectual idea’? it could be defined as an amalgamation of separate elements, brought together in a particular what then are these elements?

In in a piece of pop music there are many elements, such as : Rhythm, Melody, Lyric, commentary on culture, commentary on music, commentary on the individual, expression of feeling, direction, dynamics, pitch, genre. I’ll have to look up if there is a formal quantification somewhere! Other art forms can be described in a similar way.

The creation of a piece of music, is simple putting some of these elements together, some familiar, some from fusings of two separate individual elements. Described thus, a random generator could produce a piece of music, so where then is creativity?

A computer can reproduce  a score. Indeed, I can play a piece from the score and it will sound clinical. This isn’t music. Music occurs when the performer no longer concentrates on the technical production, switches off the intellect and lets go, allowing the emotions or soul of the music to come out. A great singer will have a number of qualities: technically brilliant, controlled power and the ability to express their emotional interpretation of the music.

There is a sense that this is the creativity. That creativity is allowing oneself to be free and emotional express the music, whilst relying and trusting their body to produce sounds and ideas technically well. To perhaps express the intellectual idea, without actively thinking about it, yet informed by the memory of the intellectual idea.

I play musical instruments. Learning to play them initially consists of learning the technicalities: how to produce notes at the correct pitch, what to do with fingers to produce individual notes. Physically it’s a complicated process, demanding a range of skills. The purpose of this learning is to be able to produce a note at a particular dynamic with specific qualities, automatically without thinking about it, to free the performer to let the music flow, to concentrate on interpretation and interaction with other musicians/ audience.

Every performance of a piece of music is slightly different. Hence something unique has been created by a fusion of various elements. The creation process is tiring because it involves switching off parts of the mind which are focusing on telling you that you are breaking self-created rules, but this is necessary to create.

From this it seems as though the intellect has no control over the creative process, that it is just a pure connection to emotional response. Except, musicians don’t perform a piece of music only once. Between each performance there is a period of reflection. During this reflection the intellect is engaged and hence influences the creation. Both the intellectual idea and the emotional response interact and ground each other into new forms.

No-one taught me what creativity was when I was at school. I had a series of art teachers whom I frustrated and they gave up on me. I remember a lesson where I had to create a couple of different shapes and then apply these shapes to a canvas. I didn’t get it, it just seemed a random exercise. I wondered how I was supposed to create meaning from these random shapes. I think I wanted to know technically how to do the task effectively, rather than just create something. I ended up trying to make the shapes into the form of a rather abstract cat and the teacher complained that this wasn’t what I was supposed to be doing. This put me off art and creativity for so long.

Years later, I had a go at drawing/painting. I did have ideas of what I wanted to create, but was incredibly slow in learning technically how to produce the desired effects. It applies to music as well. I passed grades on musical instruments at school, I was technically sound, nut didn’t know ho to unleash the ‘creativity’. Recently I’ve been teaching myself accompaniment on the keyboard. I realised I had the technical skills and instead of thinking about what I needed to do and instead just did what the music informed me to do, which was much better.

Creativity can perhaps then be defined as the fusion of intellectual ideas and emotional responses. Great art is produced by people with great technical ability and the ability to express strong emotions though their productions.


Following on from yesterday. I have to confess to being rather innocent in this. If a lady makes it clear she is’t interested in a romantic relationship, my response has always been fair enough; I don’t expect every lady who I find attractive to be attracted to me. I will seek somewhere quiet and cry my eyes out, but that’s for me to deal with until I’ve internalised what has occurred.

What I’ve always found very odd indeed, is the afterwards. Generally the lady in question was already a friend and I expected that to continue. So, when we next met, the lady would seem very standoffish. I didn’t get this at all! It seemed as though by merely expressing an interest in joining that person on a romantic/ sexual journey somehow that also meant I lost them as a friend too. Indeed I used to not ask female friends out on dates for fear of losing their friendship.

This begs the question, If we were already friends, the issue of a sexual relationship has already been knocked on the head, then this is the ‘friendzone’, so all should be fine. So, why were they running away?

I gather other men, are more persistent. I have observed that this ‘stratagem’ [hate the idea of strategies, but I hear a lot about them] does sometimes work, and dating is after all a numbers game. It’s a fine line, as continued persistence becomes harassment.

Another strategem, is to remain friends, but harbour a continued desire for a sexual relationship. If that is the motivation for continuing the friendship, then that is bad, to continue to carry a hopeless torch. Having said this, this desire for an attractive, wonderful amazing woman is a powerful deep emotion, it’s a complete waste of time but very ‘romantic’ to remain in this state, but you’re not exactly being a friend.

This does bother me, as I have gathered from some ladies I know, have seemed unable to accept that I’m no longer considering a sexual relationship with them, but remain a friend. Am I supposed to be unable to get over rejection? I am friends with ladies I find attractive, really all my friends, of all genders and sexualities are people I love and I have made a  connection to, but not seeking anything ‘happening’.

Is that I am comfortable and happy in the ‘friendzone’ unusual? Being an outsider and thus perhaps more socially suspect, does this make some people question my motivations, am I being limped together with other social misfits who have issues to deal with? It’s a crazy world, as is often said ‘Love is shit’*

I appreciate writing this is very personal, but I really don’t care anymore. Fear is stupid.

*Actually love is the best

Why I don’t have a girlfriend?

The majority of my friends are women, I think because I relate to women better generally. I like getting to know new people and making new friends. I don’t distinguish between genders in general conversation, as I regard that as being sexist, I  switch between serious conversation an flirting for everyone I meet socially.

There is also my approach to developing crushes on ladies. if I meet an attractive lady, I do what I can to suppress those accursed butterflies apparating into my tummy and try and approach the conversation as if meeting anyone new. The lady in question will  be seen first as a potential friend if I like their personality. It is only secondarily that a romantic liaison is considered.

However, I have become aware of this concept of the ‘friendzone’ [sounds like an the worst boy band in the world]. That there is a general difference between how the different genders approach new people. The ramifications of this have me screaming ‘Oh No!… not again’ and I enter another minority grouping.

To explain, to most ladies, meeting a ‘eligible’ chap, they look primarily to the potential of a relationship. If this doesn’t happen then a friendship may develop, the chap then enters the ‘friendzone’, a state of being friends where it of highly unlikely a relationship will happen from.

Arghh! This is an incompatible opposite of how I operate. For me to consider a relationship, I need to enter the friendzone first, before moving on to a relationship. Yet it seems that by doing so, the chances of this happening are radically reduced.

British inefficiency

In Britain there is a strong thread of cynicism, an ability to laugh at the absurdities of Britain and particularly poke fun at politicians. Which is much needed relief from the continuing decline and increasing inefficiency of life in Britain. Standards of living in Britain are relatively high, but living in a state in decline is in some senses, worse than living in a developing state.

These ideas have been rammed home to me as I now live in South East England. This area I understand has one of the highest population densities in the world, it feels like it. It should be a great place to live, as everything should be concentrated and easy to access.

Except it isn’t. The cuddly British way of doing things has been to cobble together a clever solution at the last minute and leave it up to individuals to find a way of making it work. Britain is a nation that evolved gradually, solutions to problems caused by increased population were generally too late, or fiddled with. For example, tearing up the railway network in the 1960s, without foreseeing what would happen if everyone needed a car to get to work.

S.E. England should have an amazing public transport system, but it doesn’t. Instead the car is more seemingly paradoxically more vital here than in the rural areas I have lived in. Furthermore the road network is poor, leading to congestion, increased journey times and greater costs.

This is coupled with the housing crisis. Not enough homes leading to high housing costs, this leads to higher wages, coupled with higher space costs for businesses. All this leads to inefficient workers, because they spend so much time travelling and coping with living in confined spaces. Sometimes I wonder why I’m staying here.

This is getting worse all the time. Britain politically, culturally and economically is based around Britain’s only huge city, London. The government run the economy to benefit the finance and service industries which base themselves here, for the connections to Europe and London.. Hence people continue to be drawn here to look for work, whilst the rest of Britain, suffers from brain drain and enterprises unable to grow due to the constraints imposed by London.

This is so inefficient, this has been foreseen throughout my time as an adult and no-one in political power has done anything about it. People were happy as they perceived they were getting better off, which was largely an illusion. It has created a Britain where the cost of living in South East England is double that of the rest of the country, wages are higher to compensate. The economy works of instead of trying to produce things more efficiently, energy is instead spent on manipulating the system and persuading people to buy inferior products at a higher price. This is not true market economics. This bubble is going to burst sometime soon.

British people ignore this, because they are fed up with politicians not doing anything about this. I’ve herald people talk about this problem all my life, but you never hear it from the politicians. Living in the South East in gets me down everyday, because the local people don’t seem to want to sort it out.

For example, driving. This area has the rudest, most impatient drivers I have ever known. They will do selfishly do whatever they can to gain a few yards, when as so many behave exactly the same way without thinking it through, actually causes everyones, including their own, journey times to be even longer. People criticise my driving for being too laid back, but why should I become aggressive, it doesn’t do me any  good.

The politicians don’t do anything because of the divisive, outdated, semi two-party electoral system. The ruling party knows it could count on it’s natural support. so needs to persuade a minority of less politically aware floating voters. Furthermore, due to the country being divided into two economies, it only has to persuade those living in the South East of England to gain a majority in parliament, hence all party promises are based on makeshift solutions to that seem to make things a little better for this minority group, to gain support of these floating voters to get the upper hand in the South East, by helping them live nearer transport hubs, which are more important as everything is getting further and further apart.

Anyway, probably time to be less cynical and try to use this blog more creatively. To escape this madness. Flowers are lovely aren’t they?

Musical Bridges

Previously, I’ve discussed how ‘alternative’ music is more interesting/ innovative/ soulful, than ‘mainstream’/ popular music. Much of the appeal of popular music is often about factors outside the music, for example association with a popular TV programme.

‘Mainstream’ music is  popular perhaps because it is more accessible and less intense. Hence it is easier to sell; attract advertising, less offensive to sensibilities. For these reasons, it sometimes earns the label ‘boring’, however good it often is.

As an avid ‘alternative’ music listener, I used to agonise about why people don’t look for deeper stronger music, why do people listen to this when there are better things out there? It is partly a question of exposure due to: novel acts , emerging artists, reduced funding for promotion. It is argued that fantastic less well known musicians aren’t heard so widely as mediocre well known artists. It is also an issue of access, the music appears less in popular media. It simply frustrates me that the world has a system which doesn’t allow great music to shine.

Music requires people to listen. This statement requires explanation. People can hear a piece of music multiple times without ‘listening’ to it. Sometimes a piece of music and often whole genres of music require the listener to ‘get it’ to understand the ‘vibe’:

I used to like classical music. Some of the incredibly well known popular works I hugely enjoyed. So I would be inspired to listen to more classical music, but didn’t ‘get it’, it just washed over me. Then one day, about four years ago,  I suddenly ‘got it’ and became a lover of classical music, I stopped trying to rationalise the music so much and just ‘listened with my ears’ (A rather glib statement, but I can’t think of one better). For the last few years I’ve been on an incredible journey of discovery of classical music. I feel it’s going to happen with Jazz soon too. I am finding a greater proportion of Jazz music that I get into, though yet to make the big leap.

A big leap? Crossing a bridge to the other side from not getting something to getting it. What is this bridge?

I have a theory. If we take a spectrum of accessible mainstream music to ‘alternative’ complicated music. For example Mozart to Stravinsky. To appreciate the works of Stravinsky, I feel you have to first get classical music, some getting your ear in is required before the genius of his music can be appreciated. On the other hand Mozart’s genius can perhaps be understood a priori.

For the listener to get to the more interesting music then requires a way of going from one end of the spectrum to the other. Hence the concept of ‘Musical Bridges’. Artist whose works have accessible elements and deeper elements. So by listening to music with  increasingly complex elements, one eventually reaches all the way across [the bridge!]. Sometimes there may be an artist the listener loves that is in the middle of this spectrum, through which mere stepping stone, the listener can cross all the way.

I used to love listening to the legendary John Peel’s shows on BBC Radio 1 FM. I subjected my parents to it, who regarded it as noise. I think I get into such things as ‘noisecore’ because I ha crossed all the way over the bridge with more and more styles of contempory music.

This doesn’t happen in isolation. Culture is in continuous flux. Even popular mainstream contemporary music is in flux. For example Lady Gaga, a hugely successful contemporary artist. For the new generation of young folk listening to music she is mainstream, a pioneer of a stylistic trend in popular music. To the older ‘mainstream’ listener she seems a perhaps controversial radical figure. To older ‘alternative’ listeners, such as myself, I am less engaged by her music, I find it ‘boring’. I appreciate what Lady Gaga is doing as it is interesting. I like accessible music too, I just don’t want to hear it all the time.

MOR – Middle of the Road [bridge?] music. is a term that many people dislike. It implies music that is neither innovative and complex, nor accessible and mainstream. There are many fantastic pieces of music that can be broadly labelled MOR. As listeners we actually require MOR to act as teh bridges or stepping stones to access the wonders at the perimeters, the ‘hardcores’ of particular genres.

Public-Private Partnership

Is the sense of a public and a private sphere merging?

Increasingly, it seems, that with the development of internet the sense of what is public and private is becoming less clear. By private, I mean your personal life, outside of work, where information and communication are kept confidentially between friends and family. By public, information and communication is available for the world to see and you can be held to account for what you say.

In a sense there is grounds for an analogy with thoughts. Your own private thoughts, remain within your own head, it is your personal choice whether you wish to share them with family and friends or a wider public (as I’m doing here!) Politicians have always smeared this. Strongly declaring their beliefs within their core supporters, whilst tempering them with the wider public. I want to focus on the internet.

The internet is still developing it’s social etiquette and various forces are at work. and more and more of our working and social lives depend upon it, which is perhaps driving this lack of distinction.

The internet offers the opportunity for anonymity. It is possible to create a persona and use the interent as this persona. Hence allowing people to experiment. However, this ability is waning, as internet identities tend to merge, to be linked and be traceable and transparent to anyone who wishes to delve deeply enough to be from one person, so one cannot hide oneself or owns personal preferences from different people. This delving is frowned upon, it is cyber-stalking, an invasion of privacy. Yet this invasion of information that is freely given and freely available publicly on the internet.

It is social media that has contributed to this merging. also to what I regard as an interesting emerging phenomenon. Socially, the onus on what to communicate and in what circumstances has in the past been entirely the prerogative of the individual, the information giver. What is emerging is the onus is increasingly placed on the receiver of information.

Before the internet the only way of obtaining information from a person was to ask them for it, giving the receiver the opportunity of what and how much to reveal. With the internet and particularly social media, one obtain vast quantities of information about the person. This information is all publicly free adn available. Yet all the information we provide is for the audience, being publicly available everyone is the audience. So much of it is whilst informative, largely irrelevent to what the information the person wants to know.

This brings me to the issue of privacy. We know to repect people’s privacy and right to do whatever they live in thier private lives. When staying at someones hopuse, we have learned a good sense of what is ‘public’ and what is private. We don’t delve through peoples drawers and cupboards, but may peruse their bookshelves or music collection.

With peoples homes on the internet, nothing is private, yet it is emerging that we shouldn’t delve. Iinstead of the onus being to the host to hide away what they wish hidden and publicly display what they would like people to look through, the onus is on the guest, to not look beyond the relevant to the reams of other information and there are often less clear distinctions. Information is available equally.

To illustrate the above, consider Facebook. some people use this almost professionally, some use it very privately, to all their hundreds of ‘friends’ some are close friends, other loser connections. There is no standard etiquette for this. so what happens is that information received is pre-filtered by the visitor rather than the  host. For example, Someone reveals details of a personal crisis, their close friends will naturally rally to the call, their loser connections understand that the message wasn’t directed at them and ignore it. The point being is that the reader does the filtering, and not the other way around, the reader has a piece of personal information that they would otherwise not have. The younger generation are, i believe, becoming skilled in filtering information from the internet in a different way to how older people filter information.

The internet is still developing, new social rules are being thrashed out in an ever changing landscape. Yet, this has legal consequences. For example the case of people who have whinged about aspects of their job to their private friends on Facebook, but this information is available publicly to there employers and there have been cases of employers who haven’t pre-filtered the information out of context and sacked people. how public and private existences will evolve over the time and social rules develop will be interesting.

A Journey to 2.2ie Land

I’ve been finding myself talking about differences between generations. I remember being an eighteen year old and wanting not to go to ‘2.2ie Land’

2.2ie land was created by the previous generation of my parents. The creation of a suburban ‘idyll’. where people would live in their own houses, which were centrally heated with modern appliances. they had a personal life outside of work, comfortable steady jobs and 2.2 children (this being the average family size at the time.)

This dream for the most part was achieved. It was within such an environment that I grew up. It was a dream fulfilled. Mt grandparents generation lived a much more meagre existence, in cold damp houses, working in often appalling conditions down the pits. Where heating and disposable income were a luxury.

In a sense my parents generation tackled the problems they identified with the previous generation. So as an eighteen year old I was identifying what the problems, the failings of this model were. to not be part of the problem but to be part of the solution and make the world better.

My generation had a dilemma. We could either fight for improvements or give in to maintaining the system which seemed be pressuring us to join. To those who gave in, vast wealth was offered and a level of luxury beyond that of our parents. To those who chose to fight, simply were uncomfortable with the idea of working for corporations simply to make money and not help achieve anything, they wanted to do something useful. The big cause was the environment, it was clear that the economy was damaging the environment in an unsustainable way. The problems seemed to be getting worse: the corporations were becoming more powerful and influential, people had less time as their commutes to work become longer, house prices were rocketing and more  food in the shops was coming from the other side of the world.

I like to think of myself as one of the fighters. However our generation faced theenormity of the task of saying that our parents had got it wrong, when actually they hadn’t, they simply hadn’t foreseen the enormity of the problems created by perpetuating a system that required revision. My generation also became distracted by the internet.

When i was eighteen I was at university. In the university there were computer rooms. In these rooms were PCs where you could type up your essays. These PCs were connected to the university mainframe and via telnet the internet, such as it was then. It was so thrilling to connect to servers and chat by text with students at universities in the US and other exotic locations. We found software to play chess with these people, it was amazing. A lot of the creative energy went on developing the internet. Perhaps I was stupid for not joining in as I didn’t want to sit at a keyboard all day (But of course I now sit at a keyboard for most of the day!).

My generation grew up with patiently waiting weeks for a trip to the city to visit the record shop and buy the new LP by our favourite band. Patiently sitting through the hour of ‘The Chart Show’ on TV, in the hope of hearing one or two songs we would like. The internet was my generations dream and it happened too.

To an extent we made it easier to circumvent corporate power by allowing access to small independent businesses, we stopped the rip off of CDs being £12 and only 67p going to the artist for example. But we failed to sort out the  problems left by our parents generation as the internet created it’s own monsters.

Others in my generation did enter the corporate world, step by step compromising to achieve positions where change for the better could be made, only to find sustainable solutions weren’t ‘cost-effective’ enough. Was anything achieved?

So, what of the next generation. I read this today. Perhaps the vast library of resources that my generation built into the internet dream has caused it’s own problems. One of the reasons I didn’t want to become a computer geek is I know how absorbing it is, how you escape from the world into it. I remember wasting days playing silly games on my ZX Spectrum as a child, not really actively enjoying the process, but simply chewing the cud. However the internet has become so pervasive that losing a connection to it does stop your life; you can no longer manage your social life or obtain information. How much is the next generation losing the skills and spiritual enrichment of non-computer based activities. This is why i don’t own a Kindle and buy books, as I want to get away from a ruddy screen for a while. Where are they going to find the energy and resources to solve the problems of our world?

Ageing Boy Bands

Writing this blog has been interesting for me. I have reviewed issues that have been influential in my life from a more mature perspective.

With age comes a greater understanding of yourself as a person and a greater understanding of the world and other people. With increased understanding there is less anger as there is a greater appreciation that other people are different have different experiences and have chosen different priorities. There comes an appreciation that you cannot re-mould the world according to yourself. Whilst it is positive to remain an agent for  positive change, there is an awareness and acceptance that you can’t change the world entirely, that one should develop oneself and specialise in seeking solutions in a specific area. Improving the ability to shut off ones feeling of rage at the world to give oneself focus and direction.

It is natural for the young to be angry, the world is an unfair maddening place. It takes time to throw off the assumption that the world can be fully understood, that life is simply a series of revelations in understanding, but the full picture is never achieved.

Some people realise some things when they are 20, whereas others realise that thing at 60, yet these 60 year olds understood other aspects at younger ages. I believe an awareness of this is perhaps the mark of maturity. I was about 30 when I realised that it doesn’t matter at what age you learned something about yourself, what is important is that you learned something that positively impacted on your life.

With increased acceptance and understanding of the world, a more complicated view emerges. Yet, youth is looked back on, somewhat jealously as a time when things seemed simpler.

Listening to contemporary songs is a fascinating journey. As a teenager, pop/rock stars expressed how I felt and they seemed superhuman. We pass through being contempories of the musicians which is very interesting. Where I am at now, where the vast majority of pop/rock stars are younger than I, is perhaps even more fascinating. It is even more insightful to listen to songs written about issues I have long passed though, rather than eagerly anticipated. It is simply refreshing to hear the rawness and connection with the feelings I once had which have become faded over time. It is good to be re-connect with the energy and clarity of motivation that older people have drowned out with more complex understanding.

I used to really dislike boy bands. They represented to me the worse side of the record industry; bland, manufactured pop music lacking creativity. I’ve never been the target group (I’ve never been a teenage girl) for such music so I shouldn’t really have cared.  I have been a teenage boy and as such, inflicted my share of incompetent yearnings and pressure upon them, unable to see clearly that they are exploring themselves too. Now I can understand the appeal of escape to fandom of a bunch of unthreatening attractive young men, to discuss the straightforward music of boy bands with contempories as a way of learning through interaction with contempories.