Thursday, March 29, 2007

the butter has all gone

Happy to happily close, we happily intoned the happy following happy chat:

'...You're welcome; and our well wishes are sincerely meant. Have a cup of tea and listen if you can to our humble tunes - across those several and varied murmurists myspaces. If you ever cobble a *-free myspace, we'd be happy to add you as a friend. Best wishes, murmurists...'.

NB: :)

the butter has all gone

replying to the inevitable; oh those facts of contrition

'...*. We appreciate your more measured and professional tone. It would have been more constructive and a nicer experience if you had employed that throughout. We always meet terseness with terseness, but prefer to engage upon more respectful ground. Weird to us that you, calling yourself *, are nonetheless myspacing under the name, *. We're assuming you have his sanction, of course; but, until you signed your third (was it?) message with your actual name, we were not sure and could not be sure, who you were. Use of the name, *, hardly helps things, we realise; but it does at least introduce the idea that you might not be *. Sorry, but once again you seem to be making assumptions about us, and employing them in your arguments and reactions. We are nice people; it is just that we are committed to debate; we are made that way. Practicality does not come into it for us. We see what we regard as illogic etc. and we engage. It was you who propelled the exchanges, we would say - insofar as you kept coming back to us, even though we said we were not interested in * and do not like what he stands for. By this, we do not mean his stance on military spending or current government policy. We mean his duplicity. You might argue he is a best hope figure; better than some. But we are not charmed by the politics of pragmatism and utility, you see. If * really is opposed to what he says he is opposed to, he needs to get his moral house in order, we feel. If you do not, as you say, have 'the time and resources to respond in due measure to each of [our] comments', then why keep coming back to us with partial and underexplained utterances? Better to make one point in meaningful fashion. We, too, have lots of things we must do. But we are idealistic enough to engage in debate where and when it occurs and we are respectful enough to give those prompting debate our time and efforts. Madness we know. Regarding reading list - great that you appreciate the suggestions. But all we were saying is read around the subject. We are now supposing you might be at university, doing a degree in political science or some such like. If so, good luck. No sinister insult intended if you are not at university. We are all still learning. Books do not have all the answers - as is obvious. But one can lose sight of that. We have found more warmth of humanity and more ideas in a great novel than in most text books. But that is our experience. You must find your own. A great man said to us once - it is important to have suppleness of mind. Exactly so. Your comment viz the 4th World War was aimed satirically at us. But let us let the point go. We agree - we said we agreed; it is an apocalyptic time, we are in some kind of war, yes. That old easily-understandable binary - hot war / cold war - has fallen away. People prefer black and white, of course. But it's all grey now; and that is so much weirder and more frightening. It's complex - but, to cut to the chase, the enemy is still the old enemy: that corpus of exploitation, self-interest, lies, expediency etc. called business, or capitalism, whatever, take your pick. There are those who are willing to do this nasty, shadowy stuff to others for personal gain. They might dress it up in fancy institutions, give it fancy names, make conspicuous donations to charities, dress the right way, go to the right parties, etc., but they are just people who are willing to exploit, lie, murder, etc. We cannot enter that game and will not enter it. As far as one can in UK, the West, under capitalism etc. we live a good life of not hurting others, of being kind, helpful, of not taking too much, of not being indulgent and excessive in our habits. Our central point remains, * - in advocating *, what are you really advocating? Politics is a dirty business. Take care....'.

the butter has all gone

ebb-tide... moon in uranus

*. Our 'appraisal', as you term it, of our exchanges was and is representative. Like a lot of people who feel they possess the weapons of theory and a willingness to use them on some pet-cause, you plump for rhetoric when reciprocity is what is needed. If you are serious about some kind of career or career-hobby in politics, then employ all that reading to enable your ears as well as your tongue. Evidence speaks for itself - nowhere in your mails did you debate the points we raised. In contrast, we met each of your points in turn, telling you why we believe your campaign for * is folly. Re-read the exchanges. We can send them back to you if you like. At no time do you seriously or meaningfully meet our questions. That's just fact. Good that you have added Schrumpeter to your reading list. That does you credit. His 'committe' analysis is the problem in a nutshell; and flags up the inherent deception of politicans, politics itself, and what gets termed democracy but isn't. May we suggest you also add, say, David Harvey, Jurgen Habermas - obvious enough; but read somewhat around the subject, too, by adding Jacques Derrida's 'The Post Card', for its 'envois', and Charles Harrison's essay (as Art and Language), included in Frascina (ed.) Pollock and After: the Critical Debate, for its discussion of the so-called 'Trobriand Island problem'. Read Camus, also - 'The Outsider', 'The Plague'. Go see the Gilbert & George exhibition at Tate Modern. The answers are as much there as they are in books formally about politics, we feel. To be clear, too, we are not formulating a recipe for inertia. Your quip about waiting for a 4th World War is as cheap as it is immature. You like to finish your messages with a cheap-shot - a common enough but tiresome ploy to gain reaction. Trouble is, it is the wrong kind of reaction, and is worse than useless; just as destructive, generalising, and idiotic as dropping those bombs on strangers you say you are dead set against. Your caricaturing us; reducing us to an abstraction, which suits the pursuit of your campaign; or so you believe. In spirit, you are just as colonial and self-interested as those you criticise. Can you not see this? You do not know us; and you will not know us. The image you have of us is all projection, flawed contingency. Thanks for the links you sent, but we will not be clicking on them. Tell us, does the 'abundant information' on * include his business interests, or how much time he spends with the poor vs how much time he spends with businessmen, etc.? We have commited no such sins; yet, at a distance and just because we disagree with you, you demonise us. In contrast, you are willing to attach your name to all kinds of dodgy systems. Before you dedicate your time to working for the man we suggest you do a moral audit of the man himself. You might not like what you find.

Xy Satie & Eno-Ob-Scene-O, Cafe Abdab, 2006

Left, far-left that is, but out of shot, stand all rational beings.

probationist, inaugural

lost in music. caught in a trap. no turning back.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

the butter has all gone

Terrier-style, but yawning, we were prompted to add:
* - clearly you've spat your dummy out. So that is that; and we are glad to be done with this tract. You responded to none of our points; said nothing in relation to the Schrumpeter quotation; nothing to meaningfully counter the charge that politicians are more interested in business, in the pockets of business - or, more exactly, power itself; that what gets termed democracy is a faint, a placebo, and is unworkable, and thus a deception. You came to us uninvited espousing democracy; you followed that by trying to be smart-arsed about our work - as a rejoinder to our rejection; we took you to task over your determinations; you twisted and turned, but said nothing substantive, we feel. We are glad you at least have passion. We just think you are using it on the wrong man. All that landlord stuff ... my god. No thanks. So tainted. Good luck anyway. murmurists

the butter has all gone

We prompted to add:
'...Trade: oh it's a trade alright. Arendt might have 'counselled', but invoking her name and philosophy in relation to MM is both distateful and wrong-headed in being so reductive as to be nonsense. She would be ill at the thought. I'd rather look to the determinations of Benjamin anyway. If politics is public service look at who it serves best. If that conflicts with our earlier arguments about it being about business we'll eat our hat. Barclays boss 22 miliion ... meanwhile child poverty increases. Even the photo you have chosen of MM adds to this association. He looks like a businessman and he is meant to. That's the pitch. How often does he associate with the poor vs how often does he associate with business is a good way to get the much-needed pie-chart. Re-read the Schrumpeter. It is not a recipe for passivity; moaning about the state of the world and still sipping those capaccinos is, we feel. Why would we want to hurl words into the wheelie-bin of your chatroom? You think that proves activism? Sorry, we disagree. Re. the Greeks ... a starting point from many possible starting points. Of course there are others. No-one suggested otherwise. Why the long face? ...and the whole indoctrination/education thing ... please. Such a moot point. And you are merely caricaturing what Eagleton said. Cf. his own reworkings in, say, 'Ideology of the Aesthetic'. Not many jokes in it, though. Your Morris dungheap metaphor doesn't work either. The House of Commons might, as you suggest, be filled with poo, but your quip fails because poo ain't active enough to drop bombs. Like we said earlier, feel free to think otherwise....'.

the butter has all gone

A seemingly official advocate of mainstream politics, seemingly acting on behalf of a mainstream politician we might all know but might not all love, asked for an opinion, in some secluded email place or other. We responded with wry wry wry, as we do and as we prefer. But several unwanted emails on, well its intellectual carparks at dawn, we yawn.

'...Please be attentive this time. We said 'start with' the ancient Greeks ... it was a lesson in contextualisation, from first principles; thus a history lesson, thus an excersise in locating some kind of first cause. So your incredulity is misplaced, in error, in being ahistorical, falling foul of problems associated with Hermeneutics. Hey - academia... There is no general enfranchisement - that's the problem. That, *, is your problem. Democracy insofar as it exists at all is a sham, a placebo. It occurs nowhere. Try Joseph Schumpeter for starters: '...What strikes me most of all, and seems to me to be the core of the trouble, is the fact that the sense of reality is so completely lost. One feels oneself to be moving in a fictitious world. This reduced sense of reality accounts for a reduced sense of responsibility and for the absence of effective volition. One has one's phrases, of course, and one's wishes and daydreams. One has one's likes and dislikes. They do not amount to a will. For the private citizen musing over national affairs there is no scope for such will and no task at which it could develop. He is a member of an unworkable committee, the committee of the whole nation, and this is why he expends less disciplined effort on mastering a political problem than he expands upon a game of bridge...'. Politicians trade on the idea that voting amounts to 'a will', when it demonstrably cannot. When pushed such people might just clutch for a palid pragmatism - saying, well, it's better than, say, Libya; knowing that those nodding heads donn't know the first thing about Libya. Great, well done, thanks. We are grateful. What rules is power. What rules is exploitation; and those who rule are those possessed of a willingness to exploit the little people and be exploited in turn by bigger people to their own gain; be it Saudi Arabia or Bush and his oil industry masters. It's just big busines, and a tiny slice for the population to keep them sufficiently quiet because business needs workers and because there's lots of them and that's scary. People know this now - that's why politics doesn't interest them; not because they are essentially satisfied and apathetic, as is often said. People, in our view, are turned-off your trade because they see through the deception and they have decided to busy themselves elsewhere. Overwhelmingly, rulers and their soldiers went to the same schools and have the same backgrounds. Social inbreeding is as destructive, sick, malign, and tasteless as familial inbreeding. The English establishment loves its little gangs. We're not in one and we are not interested in being in one. Too many are gangsters and murderers for our liking. We don't want our names on your bombs. Being in the Chomsky gang doesn't help either, we have found. Being aware and fighting with that awareness - as a form of social realism - does not work either, we have found. The problems are both irreversibly apocalyptic and too-intrenched by now, we feel. Thus, we view such things as grist for our black comedy mill only. By all means think otherwise....'.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Fournier Street

Xy Satie, Cafe Abdab, 2007

000 string guitar. gas of gases. praise be.

Monday, March 26, 2007

wahing nay

B'Jesus Chowder

more re. 'Mixing It'

Hello. You will be interested in so-called experimental music. You will be interested in the demise of Radio 3's 'Mixing It' show. If so, this post is for you. Firstly, though, mouse-over to that sidebar; click upon archive for February 2007; locate previous wordy post re. Mixing It, posted 7th February 2007. Scroll-u-like until you see it. Read, please, contextualise. Then return here. Pour your eyes upon the following rejoinder. A friend sent me this, via another friend. People care about this stuff. I feel another email to the BBC coming on.

Anyway here's the piece from ex-Mixing It presenter, Mark Russell, followed by a piece by Mark and fellow ex-presenter, Robert Sandall:

'...MARK RUSSELL FORMER MIXING IT PRESENTER 10th FEB 2007 Last night our final edition of Mixing It was broadcast on BBC Radio 3. Afterwards i read the many hundreds of emails and messages of support. I had no idea that the programme meant so much to so many. And most listeners wanted to know why Mixing It was going. In the absence of any official explanation from Radio 3 I'll tell you what I know. Last November Roger Wright (Controller Of Radio 3) took Robert & I into the DG's office at Broadcasting House in London for a short meeting (5 minutes max). His exact words were, and i remember them vividly because they puzzled me briefly, 'I'm giving Mixing It a break and I have no plans to bring it back'. He offered no explanation other than to say it didn't fit into his new schedule. He said he wanted Mixing It to fade away quietly - no publicity or big fanfares - he wanted his new schedule to get all that. You'll notice that no press or BBC publicity mentioned the final edition of Radio 3's longest running show with the same presenters. (16 and a quarter years if you're counting). We weren't to make a fuss of it on air - other than towards the end mention it in a factual way. Some listeners wondered why Robert & I didn't make a statement - and the reason is because it wouldn't have been broadcast. We recorded our final show yesterday a few hours before it was broadcast. A BBC Senior Editor sat through the whole thing. I can't ever remember that happening before. My main concern is for the fringe music that we're so passionate about. Music that falls between the cracks. Although Radio 3 say most of it will be covered in Late Junction and Hear & Now of course it won't. Unsigned bands, Experimental Noise, Improvisng Animals? Oh yeah? Radio 6 expressed an interest in taking Mixing It but decided not to. We looked into Podcasting it under the name 'Maxing It' (Roger Wright never replied to the email asking if we could take the original name with us). But the rights issues made playing the music too expensive in a Podcast. So, reluctantly, Robert & I decided to knock Mixing It on the head. Many of you have asked what we'll do next. Well Robert & I are both busy in other fields (Robert's a journalist and i'm a musician). We have no particular radio plans together - but we both agree that Mixing It has been the most enjoyable and worthwhile phase of our careers. Contrary to some listener speculation Robert & I are good friends. I have a recording studio in London where we both work from so if you want to correspond just drop us an email to : Thanks for listening and keep kissing those frogs. Mark Russell .... BUT THE BEEB WON'T LET THE NAME GO!!! Whilst we of course have no objection to Mark Russell and Robert Sandall presenting a radio programme which covers new and experimental music, the BBC has issues regarding the unauthorised use of the programme title Mixing It. The BBC has been using the programme name for 16 years and in that time it has become a very established brand for our organisation. As Mark Russell says, so established that they decided to drop it without giving a reason! So, not content with booting Mixing It off their own airwaves, the BBC seem to be doing everything they can to limit its chances on a tiny, not-for-profit radio station that survives on listeners' donations. SO EVERY WED AT 23.00 ON RESONANCEFM ON LINE. Better than nothing ...
Where's The Skill In That? Mark Russell & Robert Sandall...'.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Attenuated Quang Duc, Cafe Abdab, 2007

item 2354

teratophobe in misophiland (part-scale)

move closer

suttee, sweep

wolvery wolvery wolvery


item 9011

item 6721

ezekielian.serphardimalian.with brio

item 7021

epicurist, enviro-biro-pyre-o. foucault red-nose

centuries of lies

Friday, March 23, 2007

item. Yahoo me, upright ape-shape. Google in your trousers

items. items. we up to arse. in them. cattle-prod em. bred like lice. live like mice. fearful mound. selling england by the noun. numbering, lumbering. slack-jaw, pro-war. our trust-fund bombed iraq. with a missile made of mud. do what we can. not what we should.

in Cm
celebrate.denial trait.
couch potato.

Jilbert & Gorge

'...survival is my victory...'

item 4449

item 8002

item 0673

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

artaud said, and we should listen,

...the human face
is an empty power, a
field of death ...
... after countless thousands of years
that the human face has spoken
and breathed
one still has the impression
that it hasn't even begun to
say what it is and what it knows...

kraftwerking my way back to you, babe

fatal broadcast, killingly tacit

hourly rejoinder. Chris Squire, bass


Kate Bush

Kitajist, Ergo Goyan

Anais Nin

Now playing bass for Newsnight

Pig Ignorant, Cafe Abdab, 2007

Pig Ignorant, Cafe Abdab, 2007

J.G. Power-Ballard, Cafe Abdab, 2007

Decaf Bjorknutrino, Cafe Abdab, 2007

over2uMisss, 36, UK, no married

Allison, 42, nr London, open-minded

Joanne, 51, NE, seeks local

clag-dwelt. as b&b. twatt

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Iran as ebay

etherealist. arithmatic

cactus dildo



low-paid, for an outskirt

for foot breath

fragment shitmop remainder 333

fragment f astaire 666 601

item 4832

item 9006

reformed as showaddywaddy

Jape Clogger, Cafe Abdab, 2007

I am I am full song wrong wrong

Quartertonal Prog Elvis, Cafe Abdab, 2007

stenographic twat

item 3478