jonone100 | blog

Money Wisdom #24

2012-02-23T11:38:00.002Z

"Possession is a universal domain, that is, any human language can be expected to have conventionalised expressions for it"

Bernard Heine Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization (1997) p.1

A Review of Presence of the Past by Rupert Sheldrake

2012-02-18T12:49:00.002Z

I had a familiarity with Sheldrake's ideas prior to reading Presence of the Past, gained in the main through his and other websites. I'd also read 'Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home' which I have to say I didn't really enjoy. Sheldrake ideas are fascinating but I found 'Dogs' somewhat repetitive and whilst some of the stories are interesting they served to illustrate the constraints of a mechanistic understanding of phenomena rather than to elucidate Sheldrake's theories.The same can be said for 'Presence of the Past', however in terms of the depth of coverage and the explanation of ideas it is far superior.

I find Sheldrake's writing a little variable. For example, his discussion of the philosophy of science is very well written. He clearly explains complex ideas and shows their limitations without being dismissive. The weakness in his writing comes when he discusses his own theories. He seems to tag them on as an afterthought. I found myself wanting him to put a bit more meat on the bones of his theories and to worry a little less about appearing as an observer who seeks evidence one way or the other to confirm or deny his hypothesis. Personally, I'd prefer him to write with belief rather than detachment.

Having not been hugely positive about the book, I must say I do have a great admiration for Sheldrake. This is partly why I've given 4 stars. The main reason for the score though, is that despite its flaws the book does point towards a new way of understanding reality. That's no small thing. I have the Science Delusion sitting on my shelf and will read that shortly, but I expect that to really get tune into Sheldrake's morphic field I'm going to have to read 'A New Science of Life'.

This review is on Amazon here. I should also mention that I read this book on a Kindle which was ok but I'd have preferred the hard cover, and I bought the paperback version as a present for my daughter. She's studying Maths at Uni and I wanted to give her something to challenge philosophy of science perspective that the University will espouse.

Money Wisdom #23

2012-01-19T11:42:00.003Z

"Words are wise men's counters, they do but reckon with them, but they are the money of fools".

Thomas Hobbes quoted in Bynum et al (1981) p.300

from Rupert Sheldrake The Presence of the Past (2011) l.1863 (Kindle)

Post about Posts

2012-01-14T13:26:00.001Z

I've been bombarded by tweets & emails begging me to publish my latest essay. Not really.

I do feel some perverse sense of duty to get it out there though, mainly due to the fact that I've said several times that its on its way. However, its my work, and its my decision. And I really don't want to put anything out there about money that I'm not totally happy with. There are a couple of problems with the essay. Firstly, it seems to be turning into a much longer piece. It does appear to have a natural flow - which is a very good thing - and to curtail it just to satisfy my desire to get a bit of feedback seems wrong. Secondly, I'm switching a little between audiences. One minute I'm writing for an academic audience, the next I'm writing for the general reader. I don't think its a fatal error, but its one I want to get fixed in the first 10K words.

The essay is an exposition of my peculiar view of money - which pretty much sums up most of what I write about money - but for the first time, I've set it in an historical/evolutionary context and it seems to work for me. Seems like an obvious thing to do, and its surprising that I've not done it before. I have managed to find the hard copies of the work I did on this about ten years ago - about 60-70K words in all - which I'll re-read. In fact, I may publish some of this in the meantime. Or I may just put out bit-size chunks of my new piece. I certainly intend to put more out there this year than I have in previous years. It would be nice to get some momentum going.

I also intend to write a few of my poetic pieces. I use the term very loosely, of course. I get a sense of satisfaction from doing these. Its nice to let go of the fear of how people might interpret what I say. 'Price is to Money, as Weight is to Gravity' for example gets across so much of what I think about Money, but its not a phrase that would sit too well in an essay without several chapters of explanation. Sometimes its nice to just let them slip into people's consciousness and see what happens. My shorter pieces give me the chance to do this.

So the general idea is more posts about money - more book reviews, more short pieces, some extended pieces - and less posts like this. The blogger's curse. Posts about posts. Yuck.

A Review of 'Priceless' by William Poundstone

2012-01-08T15:24:00.000Z

As a twitter buddy of mine pointed out, with a name like Bill Poundstone you'd be destined to write this book. It's an easy read with plenty of interesting anecdotes which serve to highlight Poundstone's exposition of behavioural economics as it relates to pricing. Brief histories of the personalities involved in the subject helped to sustain my interest; experimental design is important, but it can be a little dull reading about it.

I'm a money freak - history, philosophy, sociology of money - so I approached the book from this perspective. However, I think it would be of interest to the business reader, the academic or indeed the general reader. It gives the reader an insight into the techniques that can be used to set - and achieve - a price. Poundstone shows that what we think about price very much depends on context. On its own, the understanding of the power of anchoring - a bid/offer that sets context for and influences how you'll feel about a price- will repay you the cost of the book.

Happy New Year 2012

2012-01-04T13:17:00.000Z

Happy New Year to You

I just want open up the new year with a brief miscellaneous post.

I've been feeling a little frustrated with my job. Apologies for the odd moan on twitter. I shouldn't feel sorry for myself. I've been a lot more productive with my money stuff in 2011 than I was in 2010, and that's what I'm really concerned about. When I take into account holidays etc, my current job pays pretty much the same as the tour managing. There's not the same kudos, of course. But when I'm at home I can completely forget about my job, that was never the case with the music industry stuff.

I feel like I've taken a good leap forward in 2011 with my Owning & Owing essay - even though its not finished. I look forward to putting it out there. I feel like it might have given me a new structure to explore my ideas about money. I'll admit that at times in 2011 I have thought I should really attempt to go into academia via a PHD or something. I faced a choice in 2000 about whether to continue into post-graduate studies at the LSE, or do something more interesting ;) I'm sure some may say that my current occupation would indicate that I made the wrong choice. But I don't have any regrets about that. In some ways I wish that I'd just done the van driving 5 years ago rather than getting involved with the music industry.

The other problem with academia for me is that my ideas about money are really odd. I had one Professor tell me that my ideas were 'plainly crazy'. Fair enough. But then neo-classical economics is 'clearly wrong', so who knows, 'crazy' might be closer to the truth ! At the end of the day, what I want to do is explore my ideas about money, academia (or any other job) has to be a means to that, not an end in itself. Sounds a bit arrogant and self indulgent when I put it like that, but that's how it is, I'm afraid.

So all that is a long winded way of saying what most people say at the start of a New Year - I want to be more productive this year. With both my kids moving out off to Uni, who knows I might just do it.

Money Wisdom #22

2011-12-22T12:20:00.003Z

"Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature - nature is always value-less, but has been given value at some time, as a present - and it was we who gave and bestowed it."

Friedrich Nietzsche The Gay Science (1882:301)

A Bit of Christmas Wisdom

2011-12-19T16:58:00.001Z

I'd thought I'd share this little bit of wisdom with you. You're unlikely to have come across it unless you're a money freak like me because it comes from Theodore Caplow's 1984 paper Rule enforcement without visible means: Christmas Gift Giving in Middletown which was originally published in American Journal of Sociology 89:1306-23. I came across it in James Carrier's excellent Gifts and Commodities - Exchange & Western Capitalism since 1700. Are you ready for this?

Women are particularly resentful of oversized items that seem to say that the giver perceives them as "fat".

Theodore Caplow (1984: 1314)

You can keep your Higgs Boson, this is the sort of thing we need to know.

Anyways, to briefly update you, I'm still working on my Owning & Owing piece. Its turned from and extended blog post into something more like an essay.

Have a Merry Christmas!

To Forgive is Divine - Money Burning 23/10/11

2011-11-09T20:07:00.002Z

I want you to do this.

I want you to take a £10, £20 or £50 note, or more if you can afford it. And burn it.

If you want to perpetuate poverty, if you like the idea of rich and poor, then give it to charity.

If you want change, burn it.

This is what actually happens when you burn your cash.

By destroying your paper currency you lose your claim to its value. The debt it represents still exists, recorded in the ledgers of the Bank of England (or whoever else issues it). Burning the note says you’re not collecting the debt.

By burning the note you are forgiving your debtors.

If this seems a little counter-intuitive to you, allow me to give you a very brief history of the Bank of England.

Towards the end of the 1600’s, King William III’s war against France was proving very costly. A Scot, William Patterson thought of a way to raise more money. He reckoned that £1.2 million could be obtained from subscribers to the idea of a ‘Bank of England’. This money could be given over as a loan to help fight the war. In return an interest rate of 8% would be paid from taxes. So, having raised £1.2 million in just a few weeks, the Bank of England was duly formed on 27th July 1694. The bank issued notes to its depositors. If you put £100 in, you had a note saying so. That note also said that anyone presenting it to the bank would be redeemed in gold or coinage. So if you owed someone £100, you could sign your £100 deposit note over to your creditor. He'd accept the note in payment because he’d have faith in the bank’s ability to pay. After all, the bank lent most of its money to the King, and the King had to be good for it. Eventually these notes became the money that I want you to burn.

By the way, the King's debt from 1694, has never been repaid. Every burnt, lost and never found, or other-wise destroyed item of live currency has alleviated a little of the debt burden. Destroying currency is literally offering forgiveness. So when someone says that making a charitable donation is the best thing you can do with your money, you know that's not true. You may think charity is a virtue but you know that to forgive is divine.

Nevertheless, despite the historical evidence, and despite the logic, some will see your burning as a selfish act. Their reasoning is simply this; with the cash you've burned you could have put food on the plate of a starving person. This is true. But its true for every penny that you spend, as well as the cash you burn.

The difference is of course that for every penny you spend you get something in return, whether you're donating to charity or splashing out on a luxury. Even when you tuck £20 into your niece or nephew's birthday card, you want something back. It might just be a ‘thank you’, but you still expect a return on your money. You still expect a little interest. You may be reluctant to accept this now. See how you feel after your sacrifice.

There is only one pure gift you can give and that is to burn your money. Those who set themselves against your sacrifice are really only saying one thing, “why don’t you give it to me?”

On the 23rd of October 2011 I released the Bank of England from the promise made in notes EE45 406557 and HD02 163519 to each pay the sum of ten pounds sterling to the bearer. These notes will never be presented for payment. This is my fourth year of offering money burning sacrifice.

The most important thing about it, is that I know what it feels like.

You can too. Change comes through people doing things they've never done before. Burn your money.

Give us each day our daily bread,

and forgive us our sins,

for we ourselves forgive everyone who

is indebted to us.

And lead us not into temptation.

Luke 11:2-4

Money Wisdom #21

2011-10-01T10:54:00.000+01:00

"..money seems to be the most frequent and convenient axis on which millenarian movements turn."

Kenelm Burridge New Heaven, New Earth (1969) p.146

A Review of 'The History of Money' by Jack Weatherford

2011-09-28T12:58:00.001+01:00

To me the cover of this book makes it look rather dry and serious. But really, its a highly enjoyable romp through money's past. I appreciate that this sounds dismissive, but its not meant to. The book does lack the intellectual depth and rigour of say, fellow anthroplogist Greaber's 'Debt - the first 5000 years', or economic historian Davies' 'A History of Money'. Nevertheless, if what Weatherford set out to do was write an engaging and readable history in 250 odd pages, then he has succeeded.

The book is divided into three parts. The first 'Classic Cash' grips you with gory detail about exchange in the ancient and medieval world. The second 'Paper Money' gives a bird's eye view of money from around the time of the reformation and through the industrial revolution. The third is 'Electronic Cash' where Weatherford brings us up to date and even speculates on the future a little.

I can't see this book being quoted in academic works, or appearing in too many bibliographies. However, bringing the history of money to a wider public is hugely important, and this book is a noble effort. If you're going to do an economics 101, or any finance related course, it'll put things in perspective for you.

I enjoyed it. And I recommend it.

This review is posted on Amazon here. If you found this review helpful please visit the Amazon site and vote for it.

In praise of And You and I

2011-09-22T11:28:00.000+01:00

Inspired by last week's dream where I gave a corking rendition of Awaken [with variations] after temporarily replacing Jon Anderson in Yes, and with my confidence bolstered by the heart-warming twitter reaction to last friday's #pinkfloyd night on BBC4, I'm going to share some magic with you.

Now, if you're thinking, 'oh God, not a post on Yes' then waste no more of your time reading. Instead spend 23 seconds watching, but more importantly listening to, the video directly below. It starts at 4:27, you can end it when you like, but please give it at least 23 seconds.

So, now I know I have a convert to the word of Yes. Great. Lets get into some train-spotting style detail.

Firstly you'll notice that this is not a post on Yes, but rather a post on one particular Yes song, And You and I; top of my fantasy Desert Island Discs list. The version above comes from my favourite Yes line up (Anderson, Howe, Squire, Wakeman, White) performing at the Montreaux Jazz festival in 2003 as part of their 35th anniversary tour. Comments from it's Youtube page say that the concert is regarded as one of their finest ever. I'd have to concur - at least it certainly seems that way from the videos. Unfortunately I wasn't there.

However I did manage to catch the same 35th anniversary line up at Glastonbury where they appeared a couple of weeks before they played Montreaux. My wife and I were at the front, stage right (near Steve Howe) but I haven't managed to see myself in this video. I'm pleased. I kept my sunglasses on to hide my tears. Sad but true. The video doesn't add much our understanding or appreciation of And You and I, but hey, its Yes! at Glastonbury! Things just don't get better than that.

A couple of years before, Yes (this time without Wakeman) performed the track with a orchestra in Amsterdam. I'm not sure that the orchestra comes through particularly well in the mix, nevertheless they do add a sense of gravitas - as symphonic orchestras tend to. I like the golden robots.

The video is subtitled. Anderson's lyrics are often a cause for ridicule for philistines - sorry, I mean those who don't like Yes. His approach is to write words that fit with/come from the music. In other words he doesn't write a poem that is meant to stand without the music. And in fact it can be a little distracting reading the lyrics while you listen to the piece; your mind seems to try get meaning from the written word, rather than the sung lyric.

When I first got hooked into Yes I didn't really get Anderson's approach to lyrics. I preferred the way that Roger Waters seemed to be able to make coherent statements about modern life and society. Waters' lyrics seemed to be more intelligent. But my view has changed as I've got older. Allowing the music to dictate the meaning of the lyrics requires the writer to lose his ego. (Waters' ego, of course, got famously out of control to the point where he believed he was Pink Floyd). What this means, is that although a book of Jon Anderson's lyrics may not be a great read, the point in And You and I, where he sings:

There'll be no mutant enemy, we shall certify;
Political ends, as sad remains, will die.
Reach out as forward tastes begin to enter you.

is sublime. What could be more optimistic? What brighter version of the future could there be than one where politics are no longer needed? We'll know that there are no bogeymen. Fear won't be used as a weapon against us. By being aware of this vision of the future, we take a step towards it.

There's little or no cynicism in Anderson's lyrics. I think this makes some people a little uncomfortable. I guess they feel that a certain amount of cynicism is needed to connect music and lyrics to reality. After all rock music has its roots the blues. Doesn't singing about fantasy lands where we can all love each other freely, ignore those roots and gloss over our reality. Such naivety surely only appeals to middle class teenagers who don't know how tough life can be?

Here's my answer to that criticism:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man.

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.

We need to dream.

As an aside, there's an interesting juxtaposition between Imagine and And You And I. Imagine expresses what is essentially a communist ideal, whereas And You and I expresses a libertarian ideal. I love both songs, and of course there is no actual connection (except Alan White who played drums on Imagine), but both songs seem to share something essential; they have spirituality without regard to religion.

I did find this piece of literary criticism from (what I think) is a second year English major. He seems to love the song as much as me - or at least he did back in 1975. In the past I've also read Bill Martin's fabulous The Music of Yes - Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock. Bill gives a detailed analysis of many of the great Yes songs, including And You and I. If my memory serves me correctly he sees elements of Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience in the track, and of Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation; "Coins and Crosses never know their fruitless worth". But I gifted my copy of Bill's book to friend and fellow Yes fan, so I can't check.

My own favourite version of And You and I comes from 1991's reunion tour. I was fortunate to go to one of the Wembley Arena shows. I know they played And You and I but I have absolutely no memory of it. It must have completely phased me out. The Union tour combined all the different Yes line-ups, so Trevor Rabin plays the section that you can see Steve Howe playing in the Montreaux video. Its interesting to note that Howe seems to have adopted Rabin's grander more guitar-god approach to this section in the later performances. And I think it works.

Anyway for your enjoyment here is my all time favourite version of my all time favourite piece of music from the reunion tour that I can't remember (I think its from an American gig). Thank goodness for youtube. Unfortunately the video is split into two parts but below the videos I've put the soundcloud of the same live version of the track as it appeared on the YesTerdays 4CD compilation.

09 And You and I Cord of Life Eclipse The Preacher the Teacher Apoca ... by jonone100

Jon Anderson talks at the start of the track about how this song has grown with age. I've seen Rick Wakeman say the same thing about it. For a long time Awaken was my favourite Yes track, but that changed after seeing Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe (a Yes offshot - if you can call it ) perform And You an I in 1989 (again, at Wembley Arena).

This video is from that 1989 tour. Even before Rabin turbo-charges the song it has begun to take on a new more magisterial form compared to its original album version; largely due to Wakeman's keys I think.

I could spend a brief moment talking about the musical structure of And You and I. Or, I could just direct you to this wiki page which tells you all you need to know.

The next couple of videos take us back to the first few years of the song's life. A live version from 1973 (with poor sound) which for a long time was the only live version available to Yes fans.

Next you have the original album version from 'Close to the Edge'. There was yet another version released on the 2003 remastered Close to the Edge - I think its an even earlier studio version. Unfortunately I seem to have mislaid my copy of it. I remember it as even more folky and less epic the actual album track. Perhaps someone could confirm this in the comments.

So there you have it. My favourite piece of music. Developed from what is, in Yes's perspective, almost a folk/pop song (albeit a ten minute one in four sections) into a epic piece. But one that still manages to maintain the intimacy of the original. The track Close to the Edge was the biggest on the album. Stomping in at nearly 19 minutes, again in 4 sections, with Wakeman's church organ spectacular in the middle, it gave critics of the band, enough ammunition for years to come. But the little track hiding away in the shadow of the Edge has grown into a piece of such immense power, but with such a soft touch, that it eclipses even that most monumental Yes tune, Awaken.

Of course you may disagree. I know that a lot of serious Yes fans love Siberian Khatru. Hopefully though, whichever Yes song it is that does for you, what And You and I does for me, you'll agree that we need a Yes night on BBC4.

I do get a perverse pleasure from hearing Yes ridiculed. And that's a proper perversion, friends. But really what I want, is just to share a bit of Yes joy. Their music moves me. And I think, as much as music can be, its important. Its says stuff to us that we need to hear.

Chief among Yes detractors was John Peel whose influence over the music scene was immeasurable. Indeed, it was at the Glastonbury gig in 2003 when he said live on air that Yes had been a band he'd 'loved to hate over the years'. I'm glad he recognised his own ambivalence. And he had actually been a help to Yes (as he was to so many bands) in the early years. But I do think his jibes helped alienate people - albeit unintentionally. It'd be nice if the BBC restored the karmic balance and gave Yes an evening. There are other long serving great British bands that deserve similar - Gong for example (who I had the pleasure and honour of taking to Glastonbury in 2009). But as far as Yes are concerned, John Peel incurred a debt on the BBC's behalf. That debt needs repaying.

Once done, Peel can be beatified.

I listened hard but could not see
Life tempo change out and inside me.
The preacher trained in all to lose his name,
The teacher travels asking to be shown the same.
In the end we'll agree, we'll accept, we'll immortalise
That the truth of the man maturing in his eyes
All complete in the sight of seeds of life with you.

Anyone know the right person to email at the beeb?

Money Wisdom #20

2011-09-18T10:56:00.001+01:00

Money

Quarterly, is it, money reproaches me:
'Why do you let me lie here wastefully?
I am all you never had of goods and sex.
You could get them still by writing a few cheques.'

So I look at others, what they do with theirs:
They certainly don't keep it upstairs.
By now they've a second house and car and wife:
Clearly money has something to do with life

- In fact, they've a lot in common, if you enquire:
You can't put off being young until you retire,
And however you bank your screw, the money you save
Won't in the end buy you more than a shave.

I listen to money singing. It's like looking down
From long French windows at a provincial town,
The slums, the canal, the churches ornate and mad
In the evening sun. It is intensely sad.

Philip Larkin

Reblogged from The Wondering Minstrels via a tweet from @zemblamatic

This is currency, that's value, what's Money?

2011-09-14T13:38:00.000+01:00

People seem to use the words money and currency interchangeably.

Have a look at this from David Graeber's recent book:

"Money almost always arises first from objects that are primarily used as adornment of the person. Beads, shells, feathers, dog or whale teeth, gold, silver are all well known cases in point."

David Graeber Debt - the first 5000 years (2011) p.145

I think he really means cash or currency, rather than Money. Particularly because the thrust of his book is that Money is born from debt.

Or this, from Neil Ferguson's

"The Incas could not appreciate that, for Pizarro and his men, silver was more than shiny, decorative metal. It could be made into money: a unit of account, a store of value - portable power.

Neil Ferguson The Ascent of Money (2008) p.21

Again, what he actually means is that silver can be made into currency, rather than money.

You may think that I'm being pedantic. And I'm sure Messrs Graeber and Ferguson are aware that technically speaking currency and money have different meanings. What's more important is that we're all instinctively aware that Money and currency are different. Quite how they're different can be a matter of intense debate.

Those on the left of the political spectrum tend to see Money as 'nothing'. Just a number. Value comes from what we do and how we do it. Currency is useful in so much as it helps us to transfer value efficiently. If you need value to spread itself more widely, then you create more currency.

Those on the right tend to see Money as 'something'. More than just a number. Its value comes from the market. Currency has value if the market says so. If you want Money to keep its value, then you shouldn't create too much currency.

Money, currency and value do seem related though, on whichever side of the fence you sit.

Professor Davies made this point early on in his history of Money.

"...there is an unceasing conflict between the interests of debtors, who seek to enlarge the quantity of money and who seek busily to find acceptable substitutes, and the interests of creditors, who seek to maintain or increase the value of money by limiting its supply, by refusing substitutes or accepting them with great reluctance, and generally trying in all sorts of ways to safeguard the quality of money."

Glyn Davies A History of Money (1994) p. 29

In terms of the standard definitions currency is a medium of exchange, and value is the worth of something as determined by the market. Both of which are beautifully circular. To complicate things further money is all of these things and more. Your average economist will tell you that money is a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account.

But smarter, more honest people will tell you that we don't really know what Money is.

The earliest point I can remember asking 'What is Money?' was in infant school when I was watching a TV programme on the coming decimalisation. The change in English coins and notes that occurred with decimalisation made it clear to me - even at that tender age - that currency and money were not the same thing. The notes and coins were changing, but Money would still be the same.

When I think about Money and currency I have a very clear image in my head. Currency connects us to Money. Imagine Money as a transcendental amorphous field of transformative energy. The coin in your pocket connects you to that energy. And clearly, it connects in a precise mathematical way.

When I went to study Economic History at the LSE, that childish question of 'What is Money?' was still in my head. Just as I finished my studies there, an academic book was published with a great title. The quote below comes from the introduction.

"From a commonsense point of view, economic activity in the capitalist economy is all about money: making money, earning money, spending money, saving money, and so forth.
Orthodox economic theory ...has had a persistent tendency to deny the importance of money and monetary factors in determining economic outcomes, despite the evidence of our senses."

John Smithin What is Money? (2000) p.1

A Review of 'Debt - the first 5000 years' by David Graeber

2011-09-14T11:06:00.001+01:00

Graeber provides us with a fascinating exploration of debt and its relationship to money, economic systems, and society itself. He wears his heart on his sleeve, from the start of the book where he tells the reader about his contempt for the IMF, to the end of the book where he puts in a good word for the non-industrious poor.

He also tells us some fascinating tales about how other societies have organised exchange. For me this is where he's at his strongest. The book is worth the price alone just to hear about the Gunwinggu tribe who seem to have sorted out a very appealing alternative to capitalist economic relations. In the same vein, the Lele tribe's 'village wife' adds some more spice to the story, as Graeber goes where economists fear to tread; to the idea that we are ambivalent sexual creatures not just self-interested rational automotons. Slavery, sex, death, war and marriage across human history form the backdrop to his examination of debt. What's not to like?

Well, there are a couple of things that knocked one star from this review. For me Graeber fails to distinguish between money and currency. Although this is a common problem in almost everything I've ever read about money. Towards the close of the book he describes money as 'not "really" anything'. This feels like a bit of a cop out. Would he same the same about love?

A more serious criticism is his failure to even mention the Lord of Libertarianism, Hayek. For Hayek, money was a institution born of price that was determined through the magic of markets. Graeber has interesting stuff to say about free markets and the state; he tackles Adam Smith, and finds sympathy with Keynes. But Hayek remains the elephant in the room.

Anthropology has so much to teach us about money, debt, and exchange. It should be a requirement that anyone who refers to themselves as a banker or economist should study it. Graeber's book would be a good place to start.

This review is posted on Amazon here. If you found this review helpful please visit the Amazon site and vote for it.

Money Wisdom #19

2011-09-08T10:44:00.001+01:00

My favourite ape story is from Betty Walsh, senior chimpanzee keeper at Twycross Zoo in Warwickshire, England. It concerns her bonobos (pygmy chimps):

One bonobo had a long bamboo cane, which she was poking members of the public with, so we wanted it off her. I had a bag of four cakes which we were going to have for our tea, and I thought I would give her a cake if she gave me the stick. But she saw I had four cakes and she broke the bamboo stick into four pieces, one for each cake. It was more than clever. She worked it out in a split second.

Here it is impossible to separate telepathy, subtle clues and sheer intelligence. The ape somehow picked up her keeper's intention to reward her with a cake for giving up the stick, and having seen the four cakes immediately thought of a way of getting all of them.

Rupert Sheldrake

Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home - The Unexplained Powers of Animals

(1999) p.105

Money Wisdom #18

2011-08-30T12:50:00.002+01:00

Charity... is a way of maintaining hierarchy, not undermining it.

David Graeber Debt The First 5000 Years (2011) p286

Money Wisdom #17

2011-08-30T11:02:00.001+01:00

The king once summoned Nasruddin to court.

"Tell me," said the king, "you are a mystic, a philosopher, a man of unconventional understandings. I have become interested in the issue of value. It's an interesting philosophical question. How does one establish the true worth of a person or an object. If I were to ask you to estimate my value, what would you say?"

"Oh, " Nasruddin said, "I'd say about two hundred dinars."

The emperor was flabbergasted. "What?! But this belt I'm wearing is worth two hundred dinars!"

"I know," said Nasruddin. "Actually I was taking the value of the belt into consideration."

A Medieval Turkish Story quoted in

David Graeber Debt The First 5000 Years (2011) p273

Money Wisdom #16

2011-08-27T13:32:00.000+01:00

Just as lawyers have spent a thousand years trying to make sense of Roman property concepts, so have philosophers spent centuries trying to understand how it could be possible for us to have a relation of domination over ourselves. The most popular solution - to say that each of us has something called a "mind" and that this is completely separate from something else, which we can call "the body," and that the first thing holds natural domination over the second - flies in the face of just about everything we know about cognitive science. It's obviously untrue, but we continue to hold on to it anyway, for the simple reason that none of our everyday assumptions about property, law, and freedom would make any sense without it.

David Graeber Debt The First 5000 Years (2011) p207

Money Wisdom #15

2011-08-24T11:07:00.003+01:00

"Up in our country we are human !" said the hunter. "And since we are human we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. Up here we say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs."

Freuchen (1961) p154 quoted in

David Graeber Debt The First 5000 Years (2011) p79

Money Wisdom #14

2011-08-12T15:23:00.001+01:00

SATAN, turning to the right (towards the males)
You worship two things,
You know nothing finer:
The glitter of gold,
And a woman's vagina.
The one it devours,
The other procures;
How happy you'd be then,
If both could be yours!

.....

SATAN, turning to the left (towards the females)
Two things are delightful
For you to behold:
A glorious phallus
And glittering gold.
Now listen, you women,
For you must be told
To treasure the phallus
Far more than the gold!

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe Faust - The Unpublished Scenarios from the Walpurgis night (@1832)

Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by John R. Williams (1999) p.376

Proto-Economic Flo

2011-08-01T15:17:00.001+01:00

Florence the Jack Russell recently celebrated her 2nd birthday. There's a picture of her below taken when she was bit younger with her first ever proper bone. She didn't quite know what to make of it.

Bones are important to Florence. Every dog I've had loves to chew a bone. But I've noticed that Florence's relationship with her bones isn't simply that she loves them as food. Its more complicated than that.

She does eat some of them, that's for sure. Some lamb bones are relatively easy for her to digest. We don't feed her raw chicken (with bones), although I think she'd like that. Bones are more rare treat than a staple of her diet. She enjoys licking the marrow from a beef bone. And she keeps the licked-clean bone. I would guess that the bone in the picture is hidden somewhere in the house. Her collection of real bones, along with toy bones - a brown plastic bone and a large raw hide bone - have special meaning.

She does have other things that she seems to value, other possessions; some soft toys, her bed and her Frisbee. Its easy to accept the idea that a dog has possessions once you get to know Florence. Our other dogs have been similar but Florence is more expressive in her definition of property rights. She's our first terrier.

That's not that she won't let you touch her stuff. In fact with her soft toys she'll bring them to you so play with her. She'll follow you around banging into the backs of your legs until you pay her attention. Infuriatingly she'll also pretend she's going to give you her toy and then run away at the last second in an effort to get you to chase her. However, I don't think its just about play. There's also been a few occasions when one of her bones has been offered as a gift. Not to play with, but for you to enjoy as a bone (it's return is expected). The gift bone has always been given as a result of some very bad behaviour for which she's had a major telling-off. Although its only ever the plastic bones. I guess the real bones are just too valuable.

Indeed bones generally seem to be different in her mind from her other possessions. Whereas her toys are randomly spread about the living room and sun room, in constant need of tidying up, her bones are neatly secreted away. We sometimes discover them under a piece of furniture, or stuffed down the side of the sofa. She seems to put the most treasured ones under the marital bed. She also does a scraping-I'm going to make a nest here-thing, under the bed. I think its her safe place; a bank vault and maternity ward rolled into one.

She hasn't had a litter of pubs yet. She's come into season twice. Both times she's become a turbo terrier; her possessions even more aggressively defended, and her temper shorter. Winding her up is a fun but dangerous sport. If you equate the idea of possession with the basic notion of money and economic relations, as I do, its unsurprising that a rise in her sexual energies is accompanied by a boost in her possessiveness. Money and sex seem intimately related in human culture, so perhaps its true for the world of dogs too.

We tend to think of money as a purely human thing. But when you think about some of the aspects of our relations to which money seems related - the notions of trust, indebtedness, reward - it seems a little arrogant to presume that these are only human qualities. In the Klingon-esque world of the terrier there are moral imperatives. And there is deep ambivalence - there is fear as well as fight.

It doesn't take too much of a leap of our imagination to believe that a dog's bones, are man's gold. Does it?

If you've read any of my writing before you'll know I have an unconventional view about Money. I imagine it to be something like a force or an aspect of our reality. Certainly something different to any explanation offered by current thinking. I'm not completely on my own. The idea that Money has a deeper relationship with the development of the cognitive process has been around a long while. More recently there's been a study at Yale to suggest that Capuchin monkeys have an understanding of price, wealth and even display the same loss-aversion bias as we do. Personally I wouldn't put a monkey in a cage to find this out. Florence and her bones is enough evidence for me.

My first 'tweet quote' for you this time.

I have a dog shaped hole in my life.

@nightingalefred 15th July 2011

Freddie is a singer songwriter with whom I had the pleasure of working a few years back. He has a way with words. I'd urge you to check out Heart Shaped Stone and St Catherine's Day (you have to sit thru a short ad to listen, but Freddie gets paid if you do).

Money Wisdom #13

2011-07-18T11:39:00.002+01:00

LORD CHANCELLOR, entering slowly
That I should live to see this happy day !
See this momentous paper in my hand
That has turned ill to good throughout the land.
[he reads]
'Let it be known to all who would be told:
This note is worth a thousand crowns in gold,
Secured by the buried treasure to be found
In the Imperial lands beneath the ground.
Those riches, once recovered, shall be deemed
As full equivalent to be redeemed.'

EMPEROR
But this is folly, criminal deceit!
Who wrote my signature in counterfeit?
Was no one punished for this forgery?

TREASURER
Remember, Sire! You signed the note for me
Last night, when you appeared as the mighty Pan.
The Chancellor and I explained the plan:
'To crown the pleasure of this celebration,
A few strokes of the pen will save the nation.'
You signed your name and by mysterious skills
It was reprinted on a thousand bills.
We issued the whole series right away,
So all could share this benefit today;
Tens, thirties, fifties, hundreds are to hand,
And happiness has spread through all the land.
Your city once so ravaged with decay -
It teems with joy and life again today.
Although your name has long inspired devotion,
I never heard it praised with such emotion.
We need no further alphabet than this -
That sign alone fills every heart with bliss.

EMPEROR
And they accept these notes, as gold, you say?
The court, the army take them as full pay?
So be it, then - but it still puzzles me.

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe Faust - The Second Part of the Tragedy (1832)

Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by John R. Williams (1999) p.193-194

Money Wisdom #012

2011-06-30T21:49:00.000+01:00

"In the twentieth century, we saw money turn rapidly from paper into plastic and then into mere electronic blips generated in computers, transferred over telephone lines and through computer terminals, and without any corporal existence outside of the electronic domain. Throughout its history, money has become steadily more abstract. By moving at the speed of light, electronic money has become the most powerful financial, political and social force in the world. Money has become even more like God: totally abstract and without corporeal body."

Jack Weatherford The History of Money (1997) p.249

Money Wisdom #011

2011-06-27T21:53:00.000+01:00

"With today's computer technology, there is no limit to the number of decimals of π that can be obtained except that set by time and money."

Jan Gullberg Mathematics: from the birth of numbers (1997) p.94

The New Money Movement & Moral Currencies

2011-05-20T14:17:00.004+01:00

In my post about Bitcoin, I told you how excited I was about it. The new Money movement seems to be gathering such pace with Bitcoin's digital currency at the forefront. But there is another important strand which centres around 'moral currencies'. It provides a major impetus to the movement.

The idea of creating a moral currency is something I got really excited about in the 1990's with the Ecolabel movement. Its an appealingly simple philosophy. Spend your money with the good guys and the world will be a better place.

And although things have changed since the 1990's, its not yet all farmer's markets, line caught fish and fairtrade coffee. In fact the bad guys quickly took advantage of our desire for green and ethical goods and exploited it. So things got confusing. Should I buy imported certified organic carrots from a supermarket, or local non certified organic carrots from a farmer's market? Who knows?

But the idea of changing the world by spending ethically and creating sustainably is still with us. Perhaps because at some level, we all believe in it. But also because the idea has developed. Today the internet helps us to get and give much more data about the stuff we trade and with whom we are trading. And from this data, future-minded digital adventurers hope to create currencies by measuring trust, respect, reciprocity and every other aspect of our productive relationships.

I'm not sure how you get from measuring these qualities to creating a currency, but I'm glad some brave souls are trying to do it. My worry is that this part of the new Money movement conflates currency with Money. Currencies connect us to Money, by representing our claim on Money's power. But if the dollar, the euro and the renimbi (the Chinese currency) failed tomorrow, Money would still exist. The wealth and assets that back up our belief in the existence of Money - the underlying economy as we like to refer to it in times of crisis -wouldn't just turn to dust.

Money is more than measurement. Just like gravity is more than weight.

One idea about Money is that its a basis for abstract thought, playing a role in our cognitive development as human beings. Most people would accept this about maths or language but not Money. I think there's something to the idea, which is why I get so very excited about changes to our 'monetary conciousness'.

Another idea about Money is that it subverts moral polarities, blurring the lines between good and bad, right and wrong. Most people would accept this because it tallies with their everyday experience of Money. And it also serves to make the idea of a moral currency very appealing.

However, Money's nature is one of pure amorality. It is an immaculate conception. There really is no such thing as 'dirty money', just good and bad ways of using it. So I don't think that morality can ever be thrust upon it directly. And I think its amorality is fundamental to whatever part Money plays in the development of our minds and indeed, our reality. This is why I'm dubious about morality 'sticking' to the currencies of the new money movement. Money has always resisted our attempts to shackle it with an ideology of any kind and will shrug off those currencies that try to do so.

Perhaps the stongest argument against the success of moral currencies is that we already have information about the stuff on which we spend our money and we often ignore it when the stuff is cheap. I know its something I do on a daily basis. A moral currency will become a way of contracting out the moral choices that we should be making. A bit like having a religion.

Understanding Money - knowing what it is - seems to me to be one of our greatest challenges, more so than going to Mars. So I'm excited about all aspects of the new Money movement. For me Bitcoin, or rather the multiplicity of digital currencies to which I hope it gives rise, have the greatest chance of pulling us into a new monetary conciousness; where Money more effectively mediates a supply for our demands and a demand for our supplies. And in so doing creates a reality in which we can fulfil our potential.

Then I might get paid for writing this, rather than driving a van.

No quote this time, but here's a few links for you to check out on The New Money Movement
http://www.moneyandlifemovie.com/
http://www.openmoney.org/
http://newcurrencyfrontiers.com/
http://collaborativeconsumption.com/
http://transformingmoney.blogspot.com/
http://www.ingenesist.com/
http://www.webisteme.com/blog/
http://www.dyndy.net/
http://www.metacurrency.org/
http://www.artbrock.com/
http://www.emergence.cc/futureofmoney/

Money, Currency and Bitcoin

2011-04-14T14:21:00.001+01:00

There's a lot of excitement on the internet about something called Bitcoin - a new digital currency. I'm very excited about it. But then I get excited by money generally.

Bitcoin is digital. Its made up of 0's & 1's rather than yellow metal or paper promises. And its very quickly become a new currency. There have been quite a few attempts to launch digital currencies but none have captured the imagination quite like Bitcoin.

A currency is anything that can used to faciliate exchange. So dollars work as currency, so do Sterling & the Euro. Bonds & shares work too. But so do camels, cows, drugs and just about anything else. Obviously its much easier to buy a newspaper with a dollar than a camel. But then again who knows what the future holds? In the long term camels, cows and drugs may be a more secure currency than the dollar.

The point is that currency is a manifestation of money. And Money is magic. I mean this literally. It has a transformational power which we know but cannot understand. This makes me sound pretty flakey doesn't it? But tell me, how would you define magic? For me the phenomenon of money fits the bill pretty well.

Plus I like calling money magic. It serves to remind me of the true state of our understanding of money. In fact, its arrogant - and completely in denial of the evidence before us - to assume that science has a grip on money at all. When it comes to money we're medieval.

So if you find yourself asking if Bitcoin is really money, you might as well ask if the notes and coins in your wallet are really money too. The simple but amazing truth is - that we don't know. We don't know what money is. But if Bitcoin works as well as any other currency, then its fair to assume that it's at least as real as anything else we call money.

That gives you some idea why I get so excited about money. Now let me tell you why I'm very excited about Bitcoin.

To me the idea of a one world currency is really scary. Imagine what would be done in the name of its defence. I'm in love with the utopian notion we should all create our own currencies. I'd issue a thousand Jonny Units and via the market a price is established - we'd all know the value of 1 Jon so I could go shopping. If I ran out and needed more, I'd issue more and the value of 1 Jon would rise or fall accordingly. This utopian economic world would consist of billions of competing currencies. To my mind this, not charity, would make poverty history.

Of course, that's not what Bitcoin does now.

But it at least points towards that possibility. Its easy to imagine there could be more digital currencies competing 10 years from now than there are politico-state currencies competing today. The benefit is that Digital currencies work according to the rules laid down in their code. Code - that with Bitcoin - is available for anyone to read. Politico-state currencies work differently to that.

It may be a big leap from multiple digital currencies to individual currencies, but Bitcoin, and the exchanges and intermediary functions that it has spawned show the technological barriers are being broken. A deeper broader freedom is possible when we can create our own money rather than leave it to the men in suits. That's a tantilising prospect for the future inhabitants of planet Earth.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Peter Sinfield (an extract from) Epitaph ~ In the Court of the Crimson King (1969)

Money Wisdom #010

2011-04-05T11:15:00.000+01:00

"It was striking how little control we had of events, particularly in view of how assiduously we cultivated the appearance of being in charge by smoking big cigars and saying fuck all the time."

Michael Lewis Liar's Poker (1989) p.286

Money Wisdom #009

2011-03-26T21:25:00.001Z

"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent."

John Kenneth Galbraith Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975)

Money Wisdom #008

2011-03-26T10:54:00.000Z

Michael has just done his first trade which has caused his customer to lose $65K.

"And you want to know how I felt? I should have felt guilty, of course but guilt was not the first identifiable sensation to emerge from my exploding brain. Relief was. I had told him the news. He was shouting and moaning. And that was it. That was all he could do. Shout and moan. That was the beauty of being a middleman, which I did not appreciate until that moment. The customer suffered. I didn't."

Michael Lewis Liar's Poker (1989) p.199

Money Wisdom #007

2011-03-19T12:59:00.000Z

"If you are a self-possessed man with a healthy sense of detachment from your bank account and someone writes you a cheque for tens of millions of dollars you probably behave as if you have won a sweepstake, kicking your feet in the air and laughing yourself to sleep at night at the miracle of your good fortune. But if your sense of self-worth is morbidly wrapped up in your financial success you probably believe you deserve everything you get. You take it as a reflection of something grand inside you. You acquire gravitas, and project it like a cologne..."

Michael Lewis Liar's Poker (1989) p.69

Money Wisdom #006

2011-03-15T11:51:00.000Z

"I remain more than ever convinced that, until we fully understand the origin of financial species, we shall never understand the fundamental truth about money: that, far from being 'a monster that must be put back in its place', as the German president recently complained, financial markets are like the mirror of mankind, revealing every hour of every working day the way we value ourselves and the resources of the world around us.

It is not the fault of the mirror if it reflects our blemishes as clearly as our beauty."

Niall Ferguson The Ascent of Money (2008) p.358

Money Wisdom #005

2011-03-08T11:02:00.001Z

"... as John Maynard Keynes once observed, in a crisis 'markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent'."

Niall Ferguson The Ascent of Money (2008) p.328

Money Wisdom #004

2011-02-27T17:56:00.000Z

"...there is an unceasing conflict between the interests of debtors, who seek to enlarge the quantity of money and who seek busily to find acceptable substitutes, and the interests of creditors, who seek to maintain or increase the value of money by limiting its supply, by refusing substitutes or accepting them with great reluctance, and generally trying in all sorts of ways to safeguard the quality of money."

Glyn Davies A History of Money (1994) (p. 29)

Money Wisdom #003

2011-02-23T11:45:00.000Z

"... it is not present expectations that correspond to future events but future events that are shaped by present expectations."

George Soros The Alchemy of Finance (1987)

Quoted in Naill Ferguson The Ascent of Money (1994) (p.316)

Not the catchiest of phrases to be sure, but when Soros speaks you'd be wise to listen. Money, time and belief; you could spend a lot of time trying to explain how and why you feel like you do about them :o)

Money Wisdom #002

2011-02-19T12:45:00.000Z

"Loving and fighting are the oldest, most exciting of man's activities, so that it is perfectly natural to find that payments associated with both are amongst the earliest form of money."

Glyn Davies A History of Money (1994) p.25

I think I'd say 'Fucking and Killing', but then I can be quite coarse at times. If you read one book on Money - and lets face it, Money is going to be important in your life whether or not you want it to be - make it this one from Professor Davies. Its a work of wisdom.

Money Wisdom #001

2011-02-07T22:55:00.001Z

"Remember: it's not owning property that gives you security; it just gives your creditors security. Real security comes from having a steady income"

Niall Ferguson The Ascent of Money (2008) p.278

A Musical Interlude

2011-01-27T12:52:00.000Z

I was lucky enough to work with the young man in this video. We did a headline UK tour, a tour with Scouting for Girls, and numerous one-offs & festivals including V-Fest. He's a good looking boy, no mistake. But he's also talented performer and writer who is influenced by music that even old dogs like me rate. His former record company tried to fit him in a Pop Star box. Fortunately, he was having none of it and is now exploring new ways to get his music out there via the Sam Beeton Record Club . He's a really nice lad. Do him a favour for me, please. Have a listen and if you like what you hear, click 'like'. Thank you.

Poker Blogging

2011-01-26T12:03:00.002Z

I just registered for the pokerstars event for bloggers. Big prizes :o)

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker! The WBCOOP is a free online Poker tournament open to all Bloggers, so register on WBCOOP to play.

Registration code: XXXXXX 951447

Poker Pleasure and Pain

2011-01-17T22:09:00.000Z

I won £120 playing poker online on Friday evening. The fact that I bought in for £0, having won my entry in a little sky poker promotion, only served to increase the pleasure I took from the win. I didn't play particularly well but the cards were kind to me and many of the players were making very hopeful bets. I was in a very good mood for the weekend.

I returned to the tables on Sky on Saturday night playing in a £5.75 tourney with a top price of about £100. I was ripping them up. Once the field had been reduced to about 10, I was in first place. I was dealt AJ on the button. Flop came xJx. I had it all in against one opponent by the turn. He turns over J6. He has 3 outs. In other words I'm the 94% favourite to win. But his 6 comes on the river making a sizeable dent in my stack.

A few hands later I'm up against the same guy. This time I have KQs, He has J5. After seeing a flop of KQ5, he moves all in. I, of course, call - and this time I'm all-in. The turn doesn't help him. So on the river he needs one of two 5's remaining - just two outs this time, about a 4% chance against my hand. He's hits his 5, giving him trips against my two pair. I'm out.

I seem to do better at Poker when I approach it as a sport and get really absorbed into the game. But I can't have the pleasure of winning without risking the pain of losing. And it does hurt to lose.

The win on Friday night really helped me shrug off my bad beat, though.

So here's my pearl of wisdom for this weekend's poker: winning immunises against the negative psychological impacts of losing. A stunning insight, I'm sure you'll agree.

miscellaneous too

2011-01-10T16:39:00.000Z

My blogging efforts were somewhat lacking in 2010. I'm perhaps understating that. Anyway, at the very least to remove a post which mentions 'summer' in the title, I'm typing away again.

So, what news? Well, I'm really up for a change of job. I think earning a wage by hanging around with musicians around has run its course for me. The music industry is very backward as regards the internet, and my blog has a tiny audience, so I feel pretty secure that my retirement will go unnoticed; thereby, giving me the chance to accept a job with a smile should one come along. But I'm not going looking. The last 8 years or so has been spent with some wonderful people for whom I'd willingly chop off small appendages. However, I've also spent time with some less-than-wonderful people for whom I would be disinclined to offer a micturational solution in the event of them suffering an immolation situation. Less said the better.

So that leaves poker and money.

My fascination with poker has not been welcomed by all who know me. I understand from other players that this is not uncommon. Nevertheless, my journey into poker continues. I've recently discovered some great blogs about poker. Its reassuring that others see the same potential I do - not only in playing the game - but in the game as a proxy for economic relationships. Sorry to tease - and I don't want to overplay my hand (as poker players say) - but maybe, if I can tear myself away from the tables this year, I might explore some of my thoughts on this and let you know what others are saying. Here's a prediction you can judge me on - the number of academic papers written on poker (particularly online poker) will rise dramatically in the next 5 years.

Now, lest ye forget, for me, poker is a subset of money. I did my burning this year on the 23rd October. But I had to burn a promise, rather than notes (£100) - not that there's too much difference technically. I wrote the following on a piece of paper and burnt it at 23:23 on 23/10/10:

'THE BANK OF MONEY

PLANET EARTH

I, JONATHAN HARRIS, do solemnly declare that I will destroy the state's claim to £100 (English Pounds Sterling) by burning two £50 notes. If I die before I do so, I ask that my surviving family carry out my wishes on my behalf '

There's a lot waiting on my elusive big poker win.

What I'd love to do in 2011 is write a few more short - easy to read - pieces on the nature of money. I've become less concerned with justifying what I say about money. I enjoy writing the more academic pieces and they do force me (to try) to make a coherent argument, but for the reader the shorter pieces are so much better. And for me they are the most satisfying thing to create. Its just they tend to come along at with their own timing. 'Price is to Money, as Weight is to Gravity' had been swimming around my head as an idea for years before I managed form it into a phrase.

Anyway, so that's what I'm about for now. I should imagine the difficulties Life throws up, which include the not inconsiderable problem of earning a living, may hinder my ambitions. But I shall try none the less. That big poker win would really help. Positive vibes if you please.

a travelogue of my summer

2010-09-21T11:43:00.001+01:00

Summer 2010 has been an extraordinary one for me. As we hit the end of July (pretty much the half way mark for me) here's the story so far.

June started with a trip to Berlin. This was the longest drive I'd done. I practised by driving to Cornwall and back on the Saturday, then left for Berlin at 2am on the Monday morning. Myself & Paul (guitar tech) were in our hotel on the outskirts of Berlin by late afternoon.

My first time in Berlin. They have a bizarre pipe (sewer?) system. (not my photo, btw)

The gig itself was hot & sweaty - a proper rock n roll gig. A smaller venue holding about 700 standing. Viktor Buttner did a nice blog post on the gig (Wednesday 8th June 2010). We also sold merch (T-Shirts, CDs, LPs) at the gig for the first time in ages. I do love doing merch. Reminds me of running a market stall.

On the Wednesday morning following the gig, I drove back to London. All went well until I got to Peckham. Because of an incident the High Street was blocked. Police directed us through a 'Buses only' bit - for which I subsequently received a ticket. Welcome Home.

After Berlin, I was straight out again. This time I was working for Ms Paloma Faith who was doing the Isle of Wight festival (Saturday 12th June 2010). My first festival of 2010. A couple of old friends were there too. As I was driving rather than tour managing I spent Saturday enjoying the festival. Debbie Harry walked right by me when I was going to catering.

That's not her in the picture by the way.

So once back from the IOW, I was straight back on the case with Seasick Steve who was performing at the Meltdown festival at the Royal Festival Hall (Monday 14th June 2010). There's a set of photos from the Meltdown people on flickr. Steve started the night by spending 5 minutes in the audience (see below -picture from south bank centre London). And by the end of the night people were dancing in the aisles.

No sooner had we finished the RFH gig and I was off again. I swapped vans the day after the gig to a larger Luton style van, and then the following day broke my longest drive ever record (the one I set driving to Berlin!) by driving from home in Hertfordshire to Hirtshals in Denmark where I stayed for the night. Here's the van I did it in.

From Denmark I went over to Norway. The customs in Norway were very keen. They were training 3 sniffer dogs. I guess they saw my long hair, some guitar cases and thought drugs. They did put rubber gloves on, but didn't use them in anger. After staying over night in Norway I made my way to Amal in Sweden where the gig was to be held on Sunday 20th June 2010.

Amal is the hometown of Dan Magnusson - the Viking God of Thunder and Steve's drummer. Dan & his wife have a cafe in Amal called the Strandcafe that Dan has built himself in between gigging and recording with Steve. The view from the cafe is beautiful. The image below is stolen without permission from Roy (who does Steve's sound). I'm figuring that because its only me & 2 other people that actually read my blog I might get away with it.

The gig itself was held in an old church (from 1666 if I remember correctly) that had been converted for the evening in to a concert hall. 300 of Amal's residents had bought tickets months in advance. You can see the back of Roy's head in the photo below.

The gig was very special. We were all made to feel very welcome by the people of Amal. Although I refer to it as work on my invoice, it was actually far more like a holiday. Best not mention that to Steve. Very early the morning after the gig I set off on my greatest driving adventure to date.

On 21st July 2010 I drove from Amal in Sweden to Codicote in Hertfordshire, England. That's a long way. Over 1100 miles. It was an awesome journey. Once in a lifetime kind of thing and my longest ever drive. I could have stopped overnight if I'd liked, but once I'd got to Hamburg it felt like I was nearly home, so I drove on. The highlight was the bridge/tunnel at Malmo in Sweden which I hit at about midday. It disappears into the sea at about the halfway point.

The full list of countries that passed under wheel on 21st July is Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, England. The worst bit was the M25 roadworks. A lot of flies died on the way.

It took me a good couple of days to recover from the drive. My brother and nephew had come over from Canada in the meantime, so a busy period of meals and family gatherings ensued. At the back of my mind though was this nagging feeling that we had a little gig to do in a field near Bristol. So it was difficult to relax. In fact, that little gig had been occupying my mind for a long while. Pre-production had been relatively straight forward (which was worrying !).

My wife and kiddults left for Glastonbury on the Thursday and successfully set up camp that night. I enjoyed a night in my own bed then on the Friday I went to met the Bus in London. The trip to Glastonbury festival took ages mainly thanks to the roadworks on the M25. By early evening we'd parked up and I managed to meet up with the family. Later on I returned to the Bus to where we watched some old guy bothering Kylie on Wossy's show.

On Saturday 26th July 2010 (coincidentally my daughter's 17th birthday) I tour managed Seasick Steve while he played the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury Festival 40th anniversary year. This is what it looked like for me. I'll happily accept it as the highlight of my tour management career.

After the show we packed away all the gear. And I began to relax.

I saw Scissor Sisters and Muse on the Saturday night. I left the family to sleep in their tent while I returned to the relative luxury of the tour bus. Up early on the Sunday, I got off the bus which left the site, and a hooked up with my family to enjoy Sunday at Glastonbury.

I took my daughter to see Paloma Faith perform on the Pyramid Stage. Paloma's performance convinced my daughter to switch her allegiance from Florence (and the Machine). This might mean she has to dye her hair a different colour now.

The performance I was most looking forward to seeing as a punter was Faithless. I'd never seen them before. They performed at dusk. We Come One was a classic Glastonbury moment. One worthy of the 40th anniversary. I watched half of Stevie Wonder, leaving the kiddults to enjoy the remainder of his set while wife & I returned to the campsite.

At Glastonbury we had Ida (Photographer) & Henry (Drum Tech) join us in the Seasick touring party. Ida took some great pics at Glasto and of all the rest of gigs this summer, too. Here's her Glastonbury pics.

One night sleeping in a tent was enough for me. Monday morning we packed up and I drove back home along the A303 (the road that runs past Stonehenge).

I had such fun driving down the A303 that I decided to do it again the next day, this time driving to Cornwall and back for work.

After another 2 days at home doing some more pre-production I made my way to Windsor to meet the bus for the next two gigs; Hop Farm in Kent and Thomond Stadium in Limerick (on the 3rd and 4th of July, respectively).

(This is where I wrote up to by the end of July. Now its the 1st of September. I'll try to fill in the gaps as best I can)

Tom was standing in for Roy for July's gigs. So if you see a young good looking guy in the pictures (other than me, of course) its not Roy discovering a new anti-ageing cream, its Tom. Also just for these two gigs it was Guy looking after the guitars, rather than Paul. Keep up now.

Hop Farm was hot and friendly. Limerick was windy and friendly. At both gigs Bob Dylan was headlining. At Hop Farm I remember enjoying Laura Marling's performance (especially the whistling song), thinking Van Morrison was a little dull, and finding Pete Doherty's performance nicely strange (he had two ballerinas dancing for him). I heard the last 5 minutes of Afro Celt Soundsystem, which was as shame as I'd have like to have seen and heard more. Here's Ida's photos of Hop Farm. At Limerick I enjoyed the on stage chaos of Alabama 3 (who I've done a small job for in the past). I managed to catch snippets of David Grey & Dylan. Here's Ida's photos of Limerick.

I was fairly exhausted by the time I got home from the Limerick gig and was looking forward to having 8 days at home. I had running around to do, and advancing for the next gigs. But a good few days in my own bed would be very welcome.

I was back out on the road on the 15th July. Steve was playing on Rob Brydon's new TV show (being broadcast this Autumn). I think the one we recorded is out on the 24th of September on BBC2 (the first one with Tom Jones & David Walliams is on the 17th). Stephen Fry was also a guest on the show, and Rob also recorded an interview with Sir Terry Wogan. There were some great posters from shows past around the building. My favourite below.

The day after the TV show we all met the Bus in a lay-by on the M3. Rock n roll can be very glamorous. We then faced our longest Bus journey of the summer down to Aix-le-Bains near the French alps. Getting into the site was quite an adventure and by the time we parked up its was near 4am. When I managed to get myself out of bed in the morning, many of those lucky enough to have slept through had taken a dip in the beautiful luke-warm lake just a few yards behind the bus. A good start to what was to be an even better day.

The festival was called Musilac. Its slightly unusual in that it only has two stages and they are side by side. But it seemed to work. There was only ever a 15 minute break between the acts. The mountains surrounding the site & town had cloud covered peaks but it was pretty bright and sunny in the valley with a welcome breeze coming in from the lake. The food was superb and our hosts very welcoming and friendly. We were given a boat ride on the lake in the evening, and a never ending supply of very good wine. Paul Weller, Mika, Florence and the Machine, and Rodrigo y Gabriela were all on the bill on the day Steve played. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did. Here's Ida's pictures of Musilac, the one below I took with my phone from the stage.

Early in the morning of Sunday the 18th July the bus left Musilac and headed north to Luxembourg. We turned up at Rockhal - an indoor venue next to a disused oil refinery. Again, we were well treated by our hosts and Steve & Dan played a fantastic gig. Rockhal is an extremely impressive purpose built venue. It terms of its style and surroundings it could not have contrasted more starkly with Musilac Ida's pictures of Rockhal are here.

We returned to London on Monday 19th July. There was now a break in the schedule giving me a chance to catch up with the admin and prepare for the next month of gigs. On the weekend following our return I did a gig with a local band called The Whybirds at The Garage in Islington. Its fair to say that it wasn't the best attended gig I'd done all summer, but the Whybirds still rocked out and I very much enjoyed seeing them play live for the first time. Total respect to these lads - they have 2 albums to their name, loads of gigs under their belt, and their own merch lines. All done by themselves, with no record company.

By the following Thursday 29th July the Seasick summer tour was back on again. First gig was the famous Cambridge Folk festival. Steve was playing on the Friday night. I'd never been to Cambridge Folk Festival before, so I was really looking forward to it. I have a real soft spot for anything folky. I've even been known to listen to Mike Harding's radio show on Radio2.

I have to say though, from the point of view of working at Cambridge, it wasn't the best experience. Steve & Dan had agreed to put a lot of work in - a Mojo interview (followed by a meeting/jam with a lovely group of homeless musicians), a TV and a radio interview with Mark Radcliffe, as well of course as the gig itself, and then an 90 minute signing session afterwards. This of course means a busy day for me - the TM - and the crew. The usual annoyances of poor signing on entry to the festival, informationally challenged security and incorrect passes are par for the course at festivals - all solvable and livable with. The food (and I use the term loosely) that was served in catering helped to ensure that there was no hope that the stresses and strains of the day being laughed off over a nice meal. Here's a tip to all wannabe festival organisers - don't skimp on the catering. It was an insult to all the people who work so hard to bring together a great festival - including the crew, the police & the paramedics - to serve them with food of such low quality.

I must say though, I'd definitely go to Cambridge as a punter. Some really interesting acts and a nice setting. Steve's gig was great. Steve & Dan always give everything they've got. It was also the first time they played Long Long Way with Dan on the broom. Amazing.

After Cambridge, I went home for a night in my own bed (and something to eat!). On the Saturday afternoon I drove up to Sterling in Scotland, then went onto Perth the next day (1st August 2010). At Perth it was back to being spoilt rotten by some lovely people. The Perth concert was part of a festival called Southern Fried which celebrated all things americana. Steve was playing in the main concert hall in Perth which had been sold out for months. Ida's photos of the gig are here.

Steve and Dan had a chance to play a longer set - after the 45-60 minute sets which most festivals demand. The audience were great - really enjoying themselves but still able to listen to and appreciate the music. Emily sold a ton of merch after the show and Steve and Dan stayed to sign for 2 hours everything thrust before them - and believe me that includes all sorts of body parts. I headed back to the hotel in Sterling with Paul & Emily after the gig. Then the following morning we drove back down to London.

Only two days at home finishing the bits and pieces from Perth, and preparing for the next gig at Newquay Boardmasters. During those two days at home my 3 year old £225 lappy broke (hard disc failed). Not what you need in the middle of the festival season - in fact it could be a complete disaster. Within a two hours of it failing I'd been to PC world, picked up a nice HP lappy for under £400, connected to the internet, and hey presto, I was back. No damage done. No emails lost. Nothing. The benefit of working in the cloud. It can be annoying if your internet connection is poor, but an absolute life saver in this situation. Expect a blog post from me evangelising about this.

For Newquay Boardmasters (6th August 2010) we welcomed back Roy, having said our goodbyes to Tom who left at Perth. It was a crazy gig. A young audience eager to party. You'd think the last thing to entertain them would be two old beardy guys. But they absolutely loved it (as did the beardy guys!). There's a 10 minute video about Seasick Steve at Boardmasters here (you have to suffer 30seconds of ads - sorry - but you do get to see a very good looking tour manager). Ida's photos are here. (again, a rather fetching picture of the tour manager)

After the gig I drove with Roy and Dan to our hotel in Exeter. On the Saturday Roy returned home whilst I drove Dan to Stansted airport via a bite to eat at mine and a sneaky pint in the pub.

Another few days at home tidying up the admin and preparing for a the next gigs. Then on Friday 13th August I climbed back into the van to head to Leicester Summer Sundae via Stansted (to pick up Dan). Another festival staged with the involvement of the local council. It looked really nice when I had a brief wander around. The audience's spirits weren't dampened by the rain which accompanied a lot of Steve's set and the main stage arena was packed throughout. Ida's photos of the day are here.

After returning home after Leicester I had to run down to London on the following day. Then three more days at home preparing etc before three really huge gigs. I was pretty tired by this point in the summer so quite glad that a very luxurious bus had been booked for Pukkelpop and the V-Festivals.

We all met the bus in London on Wednesday 18th August. I'd made an early visit to Waitrose (and my local Butcher's, the cheese counter at the shop next door, and the wine society) to stock the bus with goodies. My wife dropped me into London after picking up a load of T-shirts on the way. The bus left London to head for Belgium just after lunch. It was Roy's last trip out with us so we gave him a card and ensured the drinks cabinet was adequately stocked.

We arrived at the Pukkelpop site late in the evening after fighting our way through a huge traffic jam on entering the site. This was no Cambridge Festival. I've heard from others working in the industry that Pukkelpop is one of the best organised, nicest to work festivals in Europe. Steve was playing on the Thursday afternoon. Blink 182, Iron Maiden, and Placebo were on after Steve.

The set up at Pukkelpop makes complete sense. There's the tour bus park (where we all stay), directly in front of that there's the artist village (where the dressing rooms, toilets, and catering are), and then in front of that the rear of the main stage. Simple. Vehicles are on hand 24 hours a day to take artists and crew to the other stages. Ida's photos of Pukkelpop are here. My one below show Blink 182's rotating drum riser (the drums are fixed and the seat has a harness so the drummer and drums can spin round through 360 degrees - we want one for Dan).

Sadly there were two deaths at Pukkelpop. The sound engineer for Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, who was also a musician and the father of one of the band, collapsed and died of a heart attack on the Thursday night. Then tragically on the Friday night the lead singer of Ou est le Swimming Pool committed suicide by jumping from the satellite mast in the tour bus park.

We left Belgium early on Friday morning heading up to V-Festival Stafford arriving on site late on Friday evening. After a decent night's sleep I cracked on in the morning getting the merch ready and preparing with Paul, Henry, and Roy for the performance. And what a performance it was. Possibly the best short set of the summer. It never fails to amaze me to see the reaction of the kids in the audience to Steve & Dan's performance. It's a cliche to say they rocked. But they did. A signing session at the NME tent and an interview or two followed. We left site about 8pm. Ida's photos are here, mine below is of the amazing Stafford audience.

We rolled down to Chelmsford for the Sunday V-Festival and got stuck in the traffic near the site - the downside of selling day tickets, always so many people travelling to and from the site. Everyone on the bus except myself, Paul, and Christian the driver managed to sleep through the whole experience of arriving at Chelmsford. Lucky them. By 2am though we were all sorted with power for the Bus etc, and managed to head to Bedfordshire (well, Bunkfordshire actually).

I was out and about early on the Sunday sorting out some bits and pieces. Below is what the main stage looked like prior to the arrival of 90 thousand people.

Steve & Dan followed on from Stafford with another stunning performance which was lapped up by an audience eager to enjoy their day. After a brief rest backstage Steve & Dan returned to watch Madness. Halfway through the set I had to drag them over to the NME signing tent for a marathon signing session (the busiest of the day I was told) lasting an hour and twenty minutes (it was supposed to be 45 minutes). At the end of it, there were still people left disappointed because they hadn't been able to get their stuff signed. So Steve and Dan jumped over the barriers into the audience to complete the task. The security guys got a little bit panicky at this point. But of course it was all fine. I managed to sneak them backstage through a gap in the wall - where there were a load more people waiting with cameras wanting pictures etc. :o) No rest for the wicked.

Eventually, I made it back to the artist village for Steve to do a few interviews. Hanging around while Steve was doing his thing with Absolute Radio, I turned round to see Maxi Jazz from Faithless standing right beside me. So I took the opportunity to shake his hand and tell him how much I enjoyed their Glastonbury set. It was really nice to be able to do that. He told me that it was a very special gig for them too. Unfortunately I neglected to get Steve & Maxi to signing a binding contract giving me 10% of anything they earn if they do a song together. Shame. They seemed to get on well. Ida's photos of the day are here.

We left the festival the next morning heading to Stansted and then into London to unload. I took the train home and pretty much collapsed for two days.

Although there was no gig with Steve planned for the last weekend in August I had something far more important to plan for. My wife's birthday. As a little surprise for her I booked seats to see Chicago and a hotel in town so we could relax. I'll be honest. I don't like musicals. But I figured that at least with Chicago there would be plenty of semi-nakedness and general sexiness to keep me interested. I did end up enjoying it, but more importantly my wife loved it. Apparently, its pleasurable to watch people dancing. Who'd have thought it?

There had been 9 days between the end of the V-festivals and the next gigs at Electric Picnic in Eire and Bingley in Yorkshire. But they seemed to fly by (and obviously I didn't get this blog post finished). By the time I had recouped some energy I was back down in London meeting the bus with Paul for the journey to Ireland (3rd September 2010). As the rest of the gang were flying directly to Dublin, Paul and I had a floor each to ourselves on the bus (the same super luxury one we had for V's & Pukkelpop). I probably should have gone to bed given the day that was planned at Electric Picnic but this is rock and roll, so instead I drank wine and listened to music all the way to Holyhead.

We arrived on site mid morning after picking up the others on the way. I managed to slip in an hour or so of sleep during the afternoon, and then we began preparations for the two gigs Steve and Dan were playing that day. The first one was on the main stage in front of ten thousand or so. Steve is hugely popular in Ireland and we always get the warmest of welcomes. Today was no exception. Things seemed to be working well for me this summer in terms of seeing bands I like - on before Steve were Afro Celt Soundsystem (whom I'd manage to miss at Hop Farm). We all really enjoyed set from backstage.

After the main stage gig was over we got the gear straight across to the Salty Dog stage for the second gig. It was a lovely gig to play for all of us. Normally with festivals its really important to keep to strict timings. At the Salty Dog gig the answer to what time are we on? was, when you're ready. And the answer to how long shall we play? was, as long as you want. Nice. :o) It was a special gig on an upturned boat in the middle of the woods. Steve and Dan ended up playing for about 80 mins. There's a couple of fun clips on youtube here and here that give you an idea of the atmosphere. Mad but great fun. Ida's photos are here.

My work was done by about 1.30am so I went back to the bus, had a quick glass of wine and went to bed. We were leaving at 5am and I had to be up by the time we got to the port at 7am to sort out a few things. Taking a ferry with Seasick Steve presents a Tour Manager with a unique opportunity to excel.

Fortunately, with the help of various remedies, a smooth sea, and spending the entire crossing lying down in a cabin Steve managed to make it over to the UK with his stomach contents intact. We headed to Bingley with the clock very much against us eventually arriving just 75 minutes before our stage time. But the journey was soon forgotten when Steve & Dan hit the stage to play a blistering set.

It was nice to catch up with the Enemy & their crew who were playing their only festival gig of the year at Bingley. By 9.30pm the festival was over and the only thing left to do (for those of us who hadn't gone to bed) was to open a bottle of champagne and toast the end of the summer and say goodbye to Henry & Ida.

The few days between Bingley and the next gig were filled with the usual preparations. I also found time to complete most of the second half post, but I didn't quite finish it. So these last few paragraphs are written mid way through September after the final gig at the Open House Festival in Belfast (12th September 2010)

I took my son George with me to Belfast. He was going to sell the T-Shirts, CDs etc for Steve. We drove up to Stranraer in Scotland on the Saturday and caught the ferry over to Belfast. Turned out to be a nice day for a ferry trip.

The rest of the guys flew over. We got a little spoilt by the festival and were booked into the Malmaison Hotel just a few yards from the festival site which was in the Cathedral Quarter of the city. Then on the Sunday morning (the day of the gig) I took Steve round to the John Hewitt pub where he played his first gig in the UK back in 2005 and he was now unveiling a plaque. There's a picture of the plaque (and a review of the gig) here. I really liked Belfast. Obviously for people of my age Belfast has some very negative connotations. This trip successfully dispelled the troubled image of Belfast.

The gig itself was a fitting end to the Seasick Summer Tour 2010. The tent looked fabulous lined with hundreds of stars. Steve & Dan played for the absolute maximum time, running right up to the curfew. Something which was appreciated by the crowd even if it made the Stage Manager a little nervous (fines would have been imposed if we'd gone over).

George and I left the hotel at a civilised time, and after a hearty breakfast on Monday morning and headed back to Stranraer on the ferry. The crossing was a bit rough. And the drive back through the lake district was done mostly in a cloud. But we made good time all the same getting home to Herfordshire by around 9.30pm.

You know how much I love driving. Oh yes. A trip to Scotland and back just whetting my appetite I had some running around to do in the few days following so managed two trips to London, a trip to Norfolk, and down to Cornwall. Then I enjoyed my first weekend without a gig to worry about. I did nothing. It was great.

So there you have it. A travelogue of my summer 2010. To put a few faces to the names for you. The photo below was taken after the V-Festivals.

Left to right we have Roy, Dan, Steve, Paul, Henry, Ida, & Yours Truly. Missing from the picture but there in spirit are Elisabeth, Didrik, Emily, Tom, Guy and Lee. And all our Bus Drivers - Mike, Carl, Kev, Malcolm, and Christian (who took this picture). Thank you to all the crew, security, production, artist liaison, media people and festival goers whom we met along the way. Its been a blast.

You can keep up with all things Seasick Steve through his facebook page, his twitter account, or via his website.

A Miscellaneous Post

2010-05-12T15:07:00.000+01:00

After six months or so of silence I finally feel overwhelmingly compelled to post. It's on nothing in particular. Just updating you really. And there's no valid reason why I couldn't have done this 5 months and 3 weeks ago. Still, better late than never.

Orange Post
I did make a noise a few weeks back about doing a post on a bad experience we (myself, wife & son) had in an orange shop when my son bought his iPhone with his first ever wage packet. I didn't make the post in the end. To be fair to Orange, they did sort it out. The villain of the piece was a nasty little chap who was the manager of the orange shop. The post would have been about this odious little toe-rag, rather than anything particularly useful. So I really didn't want to use my blog as a means to vent my spleen.

Poker
Yeah. I've been playing a lot of poker. I enjoy it. Its a fascinating game. And there are some huge - and I mean HUGE - prizes for those who manage to win. I reckon I'm about a year into my obsession with the game, and I can see it lasting a while longer. Sorry if tweets like this - 'last hand. i had K4h in SB. only BB to play. i call. he checks. flop comes xAx. i represent the A with an all in. he calls. with A2 (7th May)' - make no sense at all. Basically though they all say the same thing - 'I lost and its not fair'.

Money
No posts from me on this for a while either. My mind is working on it though, for sure. I've made a couple of attempts to write a piece that's been on my mind a while, but it wasn't working on paper. I didn't want to force it. Poker is giving me much to think about - in respect of money. I don't just mean in terms of my bank balance, but also my understanding of money & the dynamics of economic relations. And its only 5 months or so until the next burning. I'm looking forward to that. If anything, my thoughts on 'what money is' are becoming more radical (or crazy depending on you p.o.v.).

Work
I'm just about to start a very busy period work-wise. For June, July, August & at least half of September . I'm really looking forward to the gigs - especially Glasto (main stage, Saturday afternoon).

Reading
I seem to have forgotten that I really enjoy reading. So far this year I've read 'The Pound - A Biography' by David Sinclair. I enjoyed it but found (as with Lords of Finance) economic theory was taken as natural law - which obviously its not. I've also read 'Holden on Hold 'em' by Anthony Holden. A nicely written poker book, which I enjoyed and found useful. I've dipped in and out of 'Economic Philosophy' by Joan Robinson. This is quite a famous economic text - one of those books you 'should' read. I like most things that at least try to get to grips with the 'essence' of money and the economy. This is one of those great books on (what most people consider) difficult subjects but written for the general reader - like Bertrand Russell's Western Philosophy or Hayek's Constitution of Liberty. Note to self - read more, you love it.

Internet
Its obvious that I've been particularly neglectful of my internet presence in recent months. I'm in the process of convincing myself to invest in an iPhone - I need a new tomtom and a new phone, so I'm thinking I might as well bite the bullet and get myself an iPhone with the tomtom app and gps base (I was waiting for an Android phone but after comparing my son's iPhone with HTC's offer, even I have to admit that iPhone is still a long way ahead). Anyway, I expect that having an iPhone is going to have a major impact on my relationship with the internet. It'll make everything more instantaneous for a start. Secretly, I'm quite excited about this.

So. That's about it for my first miscellaneous post. What passes for normal service will be resumed at some point.

Rage against the xfactor

2009-12-18T14:16:00.006Z

In a couple of days from now we'll find out if Rage Against the Machine's iconic track 'Killing in the Name' is going to be 2009's Xmas number one. Before the internet campaign began, xfactor's domination of the xmas number one spot looked set to continue. Although its close, RATM is the favourite to win.

I paid to download the track and I really hope it does reach number one.

And I think this campaign marks a significant moment in history of the music industry.

Here's why:

1. Its Old Media Vs New Media.
On the one side we have a saturday night light entertainment show, the sales and marketing focus of one of the largest record companies, and the backing of a man named-dropped by the President of the United States of America. On the other, 850 000 people, a facebook page, and a great song.

2. Its Good Music Vs Bad Music.
Some music is a genuine expression and exploration of what it is to be alive. Some music exists only to exploit us for commercial gain.

3. Its Scheduling Vs Sales.
The persausive power of a television institution, the attention of 20 million viewers, the action of millions of phone voters, set aside by the economic power of a just a few hundred thousand individuals focused on acheiving one goal.

....and most important of all.

4. Its a signpost to a new future.

A future where the fusion of money and art nourishes the human spirit as never before.

Getting there might be tricky though. Cynicism and apathy will deplete our energy.

But for a time at least we'll be following in the tracks of the pioneers. Pioneers like Sellaband and SlicethePie who have explored fan funding; like Last.fm and Blip.fm who try to marry music with social network; like 8tracks and Muxtape (RIP) who rely on our love of music to exist; like Napster and Pirate Bay who thought that above all music should be shared freely.

The destination is a place where you and I can listen to whatever music we want, whenever we want. For nothing. Surely, we all want that?

And future stars will flourish and prosper.

Because at the heart of the industry built around recorded music there is a not-so-well-kept secret. Promotion is the key that unlocks financial success. The songs that are the most financially successful have always been those that most people have heard for free, first. Only then do they buy a record, t-shirt, or concert ticket.

For a more detailed picture please take a look at my 'A Brief History of the Pre-Internet Music Business'.

The music industry of the C20th needs have faith in music to make the transformation into a music business fit for the C21st century.

If it doesn't we will kill it. In the name of music.

I salute Jon & Tracy Morter who founded http://bit.ly/inthename

RATM - Killing in the name
Joe McElderry - The Climb
A Rage Against the Machine Christmas
Rage Against The Machine / Zane Lowe vs. Simon Cowell / XFactor

How to create a one click follow list on Twitter

2009-12-11T12:19:00.001Z

Follow fridays are a great idea. Its good to revitalise your following. However, there is a downside. Friday's twitter stream gets really clogged with #ff, and following each recommendation can be time consuming.

If I do follow a recommendation its usually one that's made personal; e.g. follow @thisperson because they're funny and post nude pics of themselves occassionally. That sort of thing. These personalisations are great, but they do take time to write. Plus, everybody I follow is fabulous in their own unique way. It never seems completely fair to recommend just a few people out of my whole twitter stream.

So here's what I'm trying now. A one click follow list.

And here's how I did it.

1. Trim your following. Cut out those who've fallen by the wayside.
I use http://friendorfollow.com to do this.

2. Create a list of everyone you follow on twitter.
Just click 'new list' which is on the right of your twitter stream. I created my list manually - it took 20 minutes or so for 200 people. I'm sure there'll be an automated way of doing this but I've not yet found it.

3. Create a one click follow list.
Go to http://tweepml.org/. In the box that says follow a twitter list just enter twitter username/list name or the url of the list (e.g. jonone100/everyoneifollow-11-12-09 or http://twitter.com/#/list/jonone100/everyoneifollow-11-12-09)

4. Create a link so people can follow with one click.
The link is just the list page on Tweepml. So the address for my list is http://tweepml.org/@jonone100/everyoneifollow-11-12-09. You can shorten this to make it easer to tweet. I use tinyurl, but there are loads of url shortners. This is the shortened url: http://tinyurl.com/y8lps3c

5. Add the shortened address to the list description (unfortunately, it won't be clickable).

6. Let people know.

So there you have it. I love the randomness of following people you don't know. My twitter stream has one bishop, several writers, musicians, some very naughty people, and lots of wonderful microbloggers. And Stephen Fry, of course.

I hope you get as much out of this way of doing things as I have. If you find quicker and easier ways to do this please let me know!

Book Review - 'Lords of Finance' by Liaquat Ahamed

2009-11-23T17:23:00.004Z

I've just finished reading 'Lords of Finance' by Liaquat Ahamed. I started it when i was on tour on September and only just finished it. So taking over 2 months, it'd be fair to say it was a leisure read for me. I think my slow pace made it all the more enjoyable.

The book is about the Great Depression seen through the eyes of the four most important central bankers of the time. Montagu Norman from the bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve, Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank and Emile Moreau of the Banque de France. The Great Depression was a time between the first and second world wars when many countries experienced huge economic difficulties. Central to the story are 'reparations' - payments which Germany was forced to make after the first world war - and the Gold Standard. Money was linked to the amount of Gold available. The period saw changes in the relationship between money and gold.

I've studied the Great Depression as an undergraduate at the London School of Economics. A lot of the academic literature is pretty dry. Liaquat does a brilliant job of bringing the story to life. By personalising the events, by seeing them through the character's eyes, you gain a new insight into the story. And a truly amazing story it is. At the same time it is both mundane and fantastic. For a moment, think about all those millions of lives effected by the economic catastrophe. Imagine the hunger, deprivation, and desperation. Now, read this.

'Bullion was so heavy - a seventeen inch cube weighs about a ton - that instead of shipping crates of it across hundreds of miles from one country to another and paying high insurance costs, central banks had taken to "earmarking" the metal, that is, keeping it in the same fault but simply re- registering its ownership. Thus the decline in Britain's gold reserves and their accumulation in France and the United States was accomplished by a group of men descending in to the Bank of England, loading some bars onto a low wooden truck with small rubber tires, trundling them thirty feet across the room to the other wall, and offloading them, though not before attaching some white name tags indicating that the gold now belonged to the Banque de France or the Federal Reserve Bank. That the world was now being subject to a progressively tightening squeeze on credit just because there happened to be too much gold on one side of the vault and not enough on the other provoked Lord d'Abernon, Britain's ambassador to Germany after the war and now elder statesman-economist, to exclaim, "This depression is the stupidest and most gratuitous in history".

pp 379

Liaquat provides a wonderful anecdote in the footnotes telling of when the Schacht - the German Central banker - visited the New York Fed. He wanted to see Germany's gold reserves (held by the Fed). But the Fed officials couldn't actually find Germany's pallet of Gold. You couldn't make it up !

Liaquat provides us with a rich history. He paints the characters beautifully. You gain a real sense of the dynamics of the relationship between the four key individuals. Relationships upon which depended our prosperity. And whilst there is inevitably some reference to the well-heeled life of the bankers, you also appreciate them as people. They display stunning arrogance and stupidity, but also a sense of selflessness and duty. Liaquat finishes the book by referencing Keynes (who also, alongside Churchill, is obviously featured heavily). And in doing so perhaps gives us a small insight into why he took on the huge task of writing this book (taking a break form his career as a successful investment banker).

[Keynes] believed that if only we could eliminate 'muddled' thinking... in economic matters, then society could allow the management of its material welfare to take a back seat to what he thought were the central questions of existence, to the "problems of life and of human relations, of creation, behaviour and religion."

pp 504

Keynes described economists as "trustees, not of civilisation, but of the possibility of civilisation".

And despite all my praise for Liaquat's book - it will sit on my bookshelf alongside AJP Taylor's English History 1914-1945, and Glyn Davies A History of Money - it is here I must offer some criticism. And doing so, agree with Keynes. Liaquat at points seems to write from the perspective that we have solved economic problems. That we know what money is now, whereas back then we didn't. Whilst this might be reassuring to the reader, it isn't true. He displays much greater faith in the 'science' of economics than it deserves. Indeed, Keynes would have described the four central bankers as exponents of the art of economics.

I wonder if Liaquat has read Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Talib - a fellow investment professional ? Economics, as a means to an end, is hocus pocus. Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England) said in 1948 two years before his death:

"As I look back, it now seems that, with all the thought and work and good intentions, which we provided, we achieved absolutely nothing... nothing that I did, and very little that old Ben [Benjamin Strong] did internationally produced any good effect - or indeed any effect at all except that we collected money from a lot of poor devils and gave it over to the four winds."

pp 489

It is to Liaquat's credit that he includes the above quote in his book.

For a moment whilst reading the book I did wonder about my own choices in life. I did wonder whether I should have done the sensible thing tried to pursue a career in economics rather than writing weird stuff about the nature of money, and burning some of the stuff once a year. But reading quotes like that one from Norman, reassures me that although I might not be on the right path, for me, economics (with its current dogmas) would be the wrong one.

Money Burning 23-10-09 £50

2009-11-03T12:22:00.001Z

I did my third money burning ritual on Friday 23rd October. This time I burnt £50, last time it was £20, before that £10.

I recorded the serial number of the £50 - M10 362939. I probably should have done this for the £20 and £10. Perhaps it was added significance of burning the highest value note (in common usage in the UK) that encouraged me to record the note's number. Being a child of the 70's I associate the £50 note with oil sheiks and second-hand car salesmen. I don't think I actually saw one until I was in my twenties.

It certainly felt like a lot of money to burn.

I could have spent £50 in so many different ways. My family didn't fail to remind me of that. Their protestations didn't fall on deaf ears, but I felt committed to the burning. I don't think my ego would have allowed me to 'fail' for the sake £50. However, the size of the burning definitely meant my resolve was put under greater strain than in previous years. I guess whether my resolve holds into the £100, £200 and £500 years will depend, at least in part, on my financial situation.

I should point out to those who don't know me, I'm not rich. Yet, anyway ;o)

To put things in perspective, in the last three years, my money burning activities have released me from the custodianship of £80 (not cost, remember?). I don't feel guilty, or silly. The burnings have given me pleasure (I guess some might call the pleasure perverse, although I wouldn't) and inspiration. For me its also been a profound way to explore my relationship with money. It does feel like a sacred ritual.

I wouldn't like anyone to think that burning the money was an act of arrogance or some vulgar display of wealth. I don't light a cigar with the note ! In fact, even though the act is the same, they couldn't be more different. That sounds bizarre I know. The best analogy I can draw for you is with sex. It can be a wonderful transformative event, or the greatest violation; physically its the same act.

I was disappointed that the youtube recording of the burning failed. The video didn't process properly, and because I recorded it live via a webcam, its gone forever. I was however very pleased that half a dozen or so, bore witness to the burning via a live webcast. To the best of my knowledge, they were all fellow microbloggers. All were really positive about what I was doing and offered encouragement. I'm very grateful to them for sharing the moment with me.

My son recorded a little video of me changing up the 2 x £20, and 1 x £10 in the village bank. I wasn't trying to offer proof that the £50 was genuine. It is. But attempting to prove that to anyone who doubted it would be extremely difficult. What I wanted to do was give a sense of the events around the ritual (which really form part of the ritual itself). The 23rd of October is starting to feel like a special day to me.

Since the burning, my friend and colleague Mark Sampson (@IronManRecords) has burnt £10.

I'm really really happy that someone else has taken to burning money. If you've read this far, then you should too. Money is so much part of all our lives that you should 'invest' just a little of it to find out how you really feel about it.

How I find music

2009-09-01T16:35:00.000+01:00

I'm not a great hoarder of cds. We do have a trunk full of them at home, but they are not ordered or categorised. And I rarely play any of them. At some point, I intend to digitise my favourite tracks in order to create some mixes. I think I'll enjoy putting them together and it'd be nice to share them, too. But for the time being, I enjoying listening to music that I don't own* (like I do the cds), and I don't have to endure djs and advertisements to hear. These days, I listen to all my music on the internet. As a result I've listened to more new music in the past three years than ever before. This hasn't been a task I've set myself. Its a natural result of the changes in the way I choose my music.

When I say new, I mean new to me, as well as new to all of us.

One of the things that works against new music discovery is the traditional way that music carriers (vinyl, cd etc) have been presented and sold to the public. Classifying music by genre is how record shops and record companies have sorted their offer for us. Its a route to music discovery based around 'likeness'. And its an idea that has been carried into the digital age.

I have a few problems with this approach.

The first thing is that I always end up listening to music I've heard before. Familiarity in music is a powerful thing. Presented with a choice between a piece of new music, and a familiar favourite, I'll most often go for the later. The longer and broader one's musical experience, the worse this problem becomes.

Secondly, I hate it when discovering music becomes a task - a job of work. I don't want to have a disciplined approach to music. I don't want to examine a genre, or appreciate an artist's body of work. I'm lazy and I have a short attention span. I don't need no education. I want something I love in the here and now. Life is too short.

And thirdly, I like difference as well as likeness.

Likeness then, isn't necessarily the best criteria to find new music.

Charts help overcome these problems, encouraging the discovery of new music by providing us with information about a song's popularity. Unfortunately charts also provide a target for manipulation. This gives the competitive advantage to those who are best at manipulation, rather than those who are best at releasing music.

But then the places where art and money meet can be a difficult landscape.

For me, Last FM probably best typifies the transference of the traditional music selection and sales models onto the internet. Indeed, their tag line spells it out. "Last.fm recommends music, videos and concerts based on what you listen to." I think Last FM is a great site. But it is very C20th. And I don't use it.

Other behemoth sites work along similar lines, albeit with more emphasis on the notion that you should pay to have access to a piece of music (seems a bizarre idea to me). And I have a more practical problem with spotify, itunes and the other download-a-piece-of-software sites (including Last FM's scrobbler)'. I simply don't trust them. Silly, maybe. But the music industry is an injured beast at the moment just looking for people to lash out at. I'll let Google penetrate my portals, but not anyone who's sleeping with the music industry. You never know what you might catch.

Plus. I can stream pretty much any piece of music from somewhere. I use Grooveshark a lot, but there are other good ones.

There are two sites where I do perhaps 95% of my music listening. The sixtyone and 8tracks.

The sixtyone is based around gaming. Charts of songs are created according to their popularity with the site's audience. Music on the sixtyone can come from anywhere. A major recording studio, or an artist's bedroom. The beauty of the site is you can just click play and listen to new music. Sometimes I choose a genre, sometimes not. I love the idea of melding together market/gaming dynamics to filter music through a community - this has to be the most innovative solution to music discovery on the internet. However, what the sixtyone gains in technological innovation (both in a narrow and broad sense) it lacks in style. To me it sometimes has a sense of an embattled community. I wish the founders had more confidence in their gaming approach and worried less about the music. Us listeners will do that.

8tracks is a very different beast. It starts from a very simple, yet powerful idea. People put together mixes of music they like, and share them. Its a stylish site. Very Web 2.0. One simple idea, done well. Put simply, its cool. It has similarities to the traditional approach. But rather than appearing in the form of recommendations based on likeness, your musical discovery is assisted by art - by a fully formed mix put together by human beings. If you really enjoy someone's mix, you'll want to hear more from them - that's a better use of 'likeness' in music discovery. The path from music discovery to social network is entirely organic.

I had a short dalliance with Blip FM, which I liked. A bit like twitter with music. But I didn't really discover new music on it. Where as with the sixtyone and 8tracks new music discovery seems unavoidable.

And a last word goes to the old fashioned idea of combining a great knowledge of music with great writing. Headfullofsnow is the creation of Nick James aka @Jeffman1. Its an on-line music magazine with a focus on Psych, Rock, Prog. It's my sort of thing, and I like it. Thanks to HFoS, for the first time I listened to the whole of Sticky Fingers by the Stones. I've repeated that several times, now. I hope there's someone like Nick doing the same thing for punk, jazz, baroque and every other style, genre and variation thereof.

http://www.thesixtyone.com
http://www.8tracks.com
http://www.headfullofsnow.com
http://www.lastfm.com

I'm sure you can find the rest. Happy listening.

*own - yes, i know. we just rent the right to hear it.

"Hope" - musicslideshow

2009-05-06T16:14:00.006+01:00

To get the best effect please view this full screen and listen through headphones (or decent speakers).
You need to hit play on both the slideshow AND music track - one after the other, fast as you can !! - you choose which you do first!
(The speed setting on the slideshow should automatically be set at medium). The music and slideshow last for just under 3 minutes. You'll kind of spoil it for yourself if you look through the images first, so please let them just come to you with the music.

@kate_day mentioned audio slideshows on twitter a couple of weeks back. I used to enjoy watching and making them. I've put this one together over the past couple of weeks. Copyright issues tend to put a damper on them being used professionally. But I think I've got round those issues with the way I've prepared this musicslideshow (let's call it an MSS).

If you want to find out who took a particular picture, and then maybe check out the others from that set, just play the slideshow in full screen and click the info link when your chosen picture is displayed. I'm going to contact everyone who has a image in the slideshow and of course, William Fitzsimmons who wrote and performed the song 'Beautiful Morning'. And by the way, William is in the UK next week ! At Bush Hall (shepherds bush) next wednesday 13th May, Brighton on Thursday 14th May, and Bardons Boudoir on the 15th May.

I don't really want to give an explanation the MSS itself. Its theme is Hope. Other than that you can make your own mind up about it.

Technical Stuff
The music is just embedded from a site called http://www.thesixtyone.com. So no copyright issues here to worry about.

The slideshow is embedded from flickr. I favourite the images I choose for this a~~nd placed a start and end image in~~ these don't seem to be working; ~~so when you see pictures of clouds the show is over ! If you let the slideshow run after the music finishes you see the rest of my favourites.~~ I unfavourited the rest of my favourite images to help this MSS make sense (I've taken a note of them though so will be putting them up on tumblr soon). I did decide on an order in which the images should appear, so I had to favourite them in this order.

Flickr does give you some control over the which images from your favourites you place in a slideshow. I did experiment with this. You use the search feature to select in, or select out, images tagged with a particular label. However, I found that when I set the slideshow to play I encountered problems. It didn't seem to play at all if I selected out particular tags, and even if I unfavourited an image, it still appeared in the slideshow.

So what I ended up with is the simplest method of showing a slideshow of my 'favourited' images. Using a flickr created slideshow does have the benefit of getting around copyright issues. The image producers will have already have given their permission to flickr for the images to be used in this way. (Of course, if anyone does object to me directly I will remove their image.)

I hope you enjoyed it. And I hope it was a little light relief from my money posts - which I think might be quite hard going sometimes ! Please do let me know if you like it - I'll do more then ! And please RT on twitter, too. Thank you.

Oh. And please have a go yourself. Its a really enjoyable process.

PS. I'm happy to expand upon the technical process stuff if people want me to, so you don't have to go through the tedious experimentation I did.

Money - 7. The Budget 2009

2009-04-24T12:38:00.002+01:00

A Caveat to the unfamiliar: I think money is a force. For me, price is to money, as weight is to gravity.

The Budget delivered by Alistair Darling, our chancellor of the exchequer, on Wednesday 22rd April 2009 was historic; apparently.

It must be good to be an economic or financial journalist right now. A normal budget would keep journalists busy enough, but an historic one ! That has to be the highlight of a financial journalist's career. Personally, I've always found Budget Day extremely dull. Even the wittiest, most engaging writer would find it difficult to hold my interest. Like the majority of people, I want two pieces of information. One; how much is booze going up? Two; how much are fags going up? And, as I no longer smoke tobacco, I'm not really interested in number two, any more.

Are people genuinely interested in what the Budget says? I reckon that they're faking it. They feel that they need to be seen to care. They'll watch the news, read a paper, and maybe they'll get a letter from their accountants outlining the key measures and their likely impact - enough to allow them to appear to their colleagues that they know their stuff, but that's about it. In truth, they're likely to be more concerned about their current cash crisis, or the one looming, or the one they've just got over (although 'getting over' a cash crisis is becoming rarer). Two percent on this, or three percent on that after such and such a date, probably means no more to them than it does to me.

The Budget isn't really about money at all. Its about politics. Its one battle in an ongoing war. Both sides want us to believe that it is they, not their foe, who can best control the State's money-power.

The rules of engagement for the Budget day battle are as follows. The incumbent power must declare their tactics for the next year's custodianship of money-power; their strategy for dealing with money-power being set in their election manifesto. Once declared, the opposition can then criticise both the tactics and the strategy of the incumbent. The opposition often focus on any inconsistencies between them. Like when the government has achieved political power on the promise of not raising taxes, and then it does. However, such discussions can quickly numb the mind. So, both sides eventually revert to making direct attacks on the capacities and capabilities of the people involved. Like they really matter !

Attacking people for their failings is reassuring. It helps to convince us that it was someone's fault. It's nice to believe that people count. But do you really believe that if a different man or woman had been Prime Minister, or Chancellor, things would be that different? I don't. Most of us have enough trouble being custodian to our own money-power. Can you imagine quite how impossible it would be to look after the money-power of the British State?

The British State's claim on the money-force is determined by an infinite number of possibilities, the vast majority (if not all) of which are not under anyone's direct control. There is little real agreement about what's happened to British money-power in the past because one's view of the past is so dependant upon one's current political and ideological sensibilities. Predicting the future of British money-power is a highly suspect activity. You might as well read tea leaves. Our relationship to the money-force is in trouble because we fail to recognise our own limitations. The Budget serves to reinforce this failure year after year.

A persuasive argument for the value of the political ritual of the Budget is that it replaces the conflicts of earlier times; as to a certain extent all political rituals do. Instead of rich barons squaring up to the King over his demands, or vice versa, be-suited politicians glare and shout at each other across the floor of the house of commons. People keep their heads. But it is our choice of peace over war, of non-violence over bloodshed, of national politics over tribal conflict, that has created our history. The Budget is just an argument about our circumstances today. Its hard to imagine a Budget - even an historic one - changing the course of history. Ideas do that, budgets don't.

That's what I reckon. Here's what a very clever Welshman says about the money battle:
We shall see as our history of money unfolds that there is an unceasing conflict between the interests of debtors, who seek to enlarge the quantity of money and who seek busily to find acceptable substitutes, and the interests of creditors, who seek to maintain or increase the value of money by limiting its supply, by refusing substitutes or accepting them with great reluctance, and generally trying in all sorts of ways to safeguard the quality of money.

Glyn Davies - A History of Money (p. 29)

Money - 6. Counterfeiting

2009-04-17T15:17:00.004+01:00

Recently, an 83 year old man escaped a prison sentence for helping to forge £8 million. In earlier times, this crime would have cost him his life.

If you decide today that you've had enough, and from tomorrow you're going to make money without regard to the law, how would you do it? How would you get rich quick? With the gateway to criminality open, creating counterfeit cash would surely be your best bet. The advances in and availability of, reproduction technologies have made it easier than it used to be. And now, even if you do get caught, which seems unlikely if you act with due diligence and aren't too greedy, your punishment wouldn't be too severe. It would seem rather harsh for the courts to dish out long sentences to punish culprits for the harm they're doing to the economy. Even the largest most determined counterfeiter would find it hard to match what the banks have done.

When I was growing up, if you decided that you'd had enough, you'd say 'I'm going to rob a bank'. This was an expression of feelings and a statement of intent (albeit one very rarely acted upon) that was socially acceptable. People would react rather differently if you'd said 'I'm going to rob a granny'. In essence the crime is the same, you're taking something that clearly doesn't belong to you. But grannies fit our notion of victim hood, banks do not.

These days, I reckon we should say 'I'm going to print some cash', when we want to express those feelings. Why have any victims at all?

Counterfeit cash has no victims. At least, there are no victims while we maintain the believe that the cash is real. When someone creates a fake £10 note a [false] debt is raised against the Bank of England. But, as long as the bank remains sound, and as long as the note itself is believed to be real, the £10 note functions as well as any other. Assuming the Bank of England can detect the counterfeit it can refuse to honour the £10 debt because it did not create it. So, essentially the counterfeiter has loaned national economy some temporary liquidity at his own risk and at no direct cost to the central bank. In payment of his [illegal] liquidity loan he gets whatever his counterfeit cash can buy him.

This might seem an odd way to look at things. But in the past it might have made more sense. In the days before paper money, Kings and Queens found it expensive to provide coinage for their subjects to use in economic exchange. There was huge demand for coins. To provide them, a King would strike a deal with his minters to share the profit made by 'cheating' the coin out of it's full value of precious metal, by making it lighter than previous issues, or using alloys. Debased coins and counterfeit cash are essentially the same thing. Both provide real liquidity. Its estimated that '1 in 20 £1 coins [in circulation in 2009] are fake'. But a counterfeit £1 is still a real coin; a counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbag, is a fake Louis Vuitton, but its still a real handbag.

Counterfeiters do not create fake money; what they do is make a false claim on the custodianship of money-power. All of us are at least guilty of overstating our money-power at some point in our lives. Banks especially. It comes with the capitalist territory.

The primary claim to the custodianship of money-power comes from the state. The claim the British state makes bears the £ symbol, of course. We know and respect this symbol as a mark of British custodianship of money-power. All claims made with this symbol are, ultimately, subordinate to the British state. The British state's claim is itself subordinate to the world's most powerful symbol. Currently this is $ symbol. All around the world people in their day-to-day lives believe that the paper, duly authorised to bear this symbol, is money (they're wrong of course - its just cash). The custodianship of money-power cannot be maintained without our belief in these symbols. Should that belief waver, the custodians of money-power fight to keep the faith. To this point in history, military strength and money-power have gone hand-in-hand.

This is the power structure that counterfeiters are subverting.

However, the paradox of counterfeiting is that so long as it remains hidden, it actually helps the economy. To damage the reputation of the symbol it mimics, counterfeit cash needs to be recognised as counterfeit. This sets up an interesting dynamic for the State. Its in the State's best interest to keep quiet about the levels of counterfeit currency. And it might actually be better for the economy to have an unnoticed level of counterfeit currency circulating. Liquidity is increased, but central bank debt levels are not.

I'm not suggesting that for you, or me, counterfeiting cash would be a good thing to do. It's fundamentally dishonest; it makes liers of us. But we should try understand it.

Hayek - [you don't know who Hayek was? if Keynes were Jesus, then Hayek is God, and Marx is the Devil, or vice versa, depending on your p.o.v.] - argued that citizens should be free to use and refuse any currencies they wish. He thought that if the state monopoly on money creation was ended we'd be free from cycles of inflation and deflation, so that the unemployment and depression often blamed on capitalism would be cured. He published a paper on it in that special year 1976 (1 + 9 + 7 + 6 = 23). He was quite old by then, so most people just thought he'd gone a bit mad. I think he was on the right track. In fact, I'd go quite a lot further than that.

No quotation for you this time. Instead a link to Lawrence Malkin's site about operation Bernhard. This was a Nazi plan to destroy the British economy by issuing, Malkin estimates, $650 million worth of counterfeit British notes (that's about six or seven billion in today's money). Obviously, it didn't work out too well for the Nazis.

Money - 5. Charity

2009-03-27T19:05:00.004Z

On the 23rd October 2009, I'm going to set light to a £50 note and witness it burn. Some will say, as they did when I burnt £20 last year, and £10 the year before, that I should give the cash to charity. And that burning money is wasteful and selfish.

But burning cash is never wasteful.

Well, its never any more wasteful than burning any other piece of printed paper. The money still exists after burning. The only thing lost is my 'ownership' of the money; ownership, or more accurately 'custodianship', that is signalled by my holding of the cash. In terms of my own emotions, feelings and thoughts about the money burning ritual, its important to me that what's left is just ashes. I don't want a sticker, badge, pen or a red nose. I don't want a warm glow of moral superiority. I want nothing.

For purity, and to subvert the transactional sphere as completely as possible, the money burning ritual must destroy my custodianship of the £50.

And burning cash is not selfish.

I can be selfish. I expect we all can. Some people say that our genes are selfish. And depending on how you look at things, any behaviour can be seen as selfish; it depends upon your perspective. But burning cash can never be selfish. I give up something I own, of known value, in return for nothing; that's the definition of a selfless act. I could still be selfish, but the ritual of burning cash is inherently selfless.

Burning cash releases money from me, and me from money. It helps me understand my relationship with money more clearly.

None of what I've said though, would I expect, convince anyone that I shouldn't give the money to charity. It would be easier and possibly wiser for me to lie to you here, to protect myself. I could say that even though I burn money once a year, I give a far greater amount to worthy causes. But I don't. In fact, I don't give to charity at all.

I've put a lot about myself in the public sphere since the internet came along. But this is the first time I've confessed to this in public. In fact other than immediate family (who respectfully disagree with my position), I have only had one conversation about not giving to charity. This was at a seminar at the Institute of Economic Affairs in 2000 (the IEA is a libertarian think-tank). A small group of us huddled together and extending a conversation from the seminar, we admitted to each other in hushed tones, that we didn't give - on principle. I'll try to give some form of explanation as to what those principles are (for me).

Charity is seen as something good. There is no need for me to write here about the fact that charities can be inefficient or corrupt. Any organisation of human beings can display these qualities. I'm sure everyone understands that. It is the act of charity itself which I cannot allow myself to support.

Words used to describe economic exchange are laden with morality; give, sell, buy, take. It is better to give, we are told, than to receive. Quite why this folk wisdom is so ingrained in our thinking is a mystery to me; after all, every giver needs a taker. Nevertheless, giving is seen as the morally superior act. By giving we cast ourselves in the role of God. We judge who should receive our gifts. We want to give only to those who are worthy. We must do so, the thinking goes, because Money is a limited resource. And we don't want to waste it.

But of course, money is not a limited resource. Its not like coal or oil, wheat or cotton, guns or diamonds; its a force.

Charity is a way to transfer that force to others about whom we feel guilty. Sometimes we feel guilty because we feel responsible for their plight, and sometimes we feel guilty just because we have stuff and they don't. But by transferring ownership of the 'money-force' through charity, we make it harder for them to understand their own relationship with money. We cannot bear to see their suffering, their otherness, so we give away our power to make them more like us - except not quite as good. Charity is always more about the giver than the receiver.

Charitable exchange sustains social imbalance in a way that commercial exchange does not.

According to current wisdom our economic world is built on self-interested, profit maximising, rational behaviour. The rational economic man underpins our understanding of capitalism. The reason you have running water, sewers, cars, buses, schools and everything else that we associate with our modern world is because we look after number one in our economic exchanges. Personally I don't believe this story - I think that in most economic exchanges, by most people, most of the time, what we seek is a 'fair' exchange. Nevertheless, economic rationality is seen by politicians, academics, economists and businessmen as the right way to be. And yet, every now and then, we completely invert this form of behaviour and decide to give money away. I seem to be on my own as finding this very strange.

If you're not familiar with economics, or if you're too young to remember Maggie Thatcher, let me push the point. The modern world believes that the wealth of nations is built upon the self-interested behaviour of its citizens. Adam Smith, a canny scot, wrote a book about it called 'The Wealth of Nations' in 1776. It was Maggie's favourite.

And yet, when we are faced with situations in which resources are desperately needed, we abandon what the majority regard as self-evident, and instead revert to charity. I say revert, because charity itself, of course, has a long ignoble history. The church used to like to conduct it's economic affairs (and those of its members) by the use of taxes (they called them tithes) and the handing out of charity to the deserving. You'd grow your food, tend your livestock, and then give some to your lord for military protection, and some to the Church for spiritual protection. What was left, you'd feed your family with and maybe, if there was a surplus, you could sell or exchange it. Giving charity and playing God have been bedfellows for a very long time.

The growth of commerce subverted the power relationships in society. Money is seen by some as something negative because it corrodes social bonds. In Britain the wealth created by mercantalism enabled the rich to hire servants. The demand for servants, and the desire for money, drove (mainly) young women from the bosom of their family, into the service of another. The positive view of Money is that it liberates us. Those young women stopped giving away their labour for free to their families, and chose to sell it to the rich, sowing the seeds of liberation for future generations.

Destruction and liberation can be the two sides of the same coin. A coin that is created for commercial exchange.

Charitable gifts are bestowed by those who have too much, to those who have too little. Commercial exchange helps those who have too much, to trade their surpluses for things they need or want. To believe in the righteousness of commercial exchange, over charitable gifts, you only have to believe that everyone -no matter how poor, how ill-educated, or how disadvantaged - has something to offer you. To reach a fair exchange is better for both parties.

Charity is a quicksand that pulls the poor further into poverty with each donation.

The deification of the charitable act impacts upon our social, as well as our economic, lives. The positive feelings bestowed upon the giver by our warped view of the sanctity of charity serve to stratify society, creating a class system of 'goodness'. In other words, and rather like in Catholicism, sins can be absolved by charitable donation.

Corporations can behave appallingly, and then purchase public goodwill with a charitable donation. A thousand bad things done to a thousand people will result in a thousand individual voices of disquiet. One good thing done for red nose day will result in the good will of millions. If you are an amoral corporate body this seems like a good deal. If we want corporations to behave more like people and less like monsters, we need to change those incentives.

People are generally wise to the way corporations use the charitable act for their own ends. But for the individual, charity offers the opportunity for not just absolution, but redemption. Giving is in grained into the western judaeo-christian mentality. Christ gave his life for us; the ultimate act of charity that we seek to safely replicate each time we give up custodianship of our money-force. But each time we do so, we strike a secret bargain. A bargain that we may only barely be concious of, but one that is there for us, as it was for Christ.

We give, in order that we may be saved.

If you disagree with me - and in my experience of this issue, that will be the vast majority of you - please consider just one thing. You have custodianship of your money. You decide. As well as giving to charity, think deeply about to whom you lend your custodianship. It may be that the very poverty and distress you seek to cure with your gift, is caused by the actions of those you trust to act in loco parentis for your money-power.

To give blindly is as much a sin as to take knowingly.

That, my friends, is what I think. Be assurred though, should we ever be stuck on a desert island together I would share my food with you. I expect you'd do the same.

Here's what someone else thinks:
Charity must be recognized for what it is: another aspect of the institutionalized humiliation inherent in our economized existence which must be destroyed so we can fully live.

Against Charity - Feral Faun on the Insurgent Desire web site

Here is a link to the entire article

Read or download all of my Money essays here.

Money - 4. An Introduction to the Power of Money

2009-02-23T21:04:00.000Z

No-one really knows what money is. That may seem odd. We know about some very strange things like quarks and quasars. But not money.

It's wise to bear our lack of understanding about money in mind. Many people claim to have a better idea about it than you.

Economists and Bankers, Entrepreneurs, Businessmen, Politicians and Academics; each claim wisdom. Money is 'nothing but numbers', a 'true measure', a 'means', a 'liberator', 'money is, what money does'.

In fact, money can be anything we believe it to be. This can make it difficult to know what money is.

Theories about money are plentiful and can fit any circumstance. They are comforting to us, but fundamentally unreliable. Experience suggests that having confidence and trust in our understanding of money is important for our well being. But our current 'wisdom' engenders faith at the expense of the truth. That misplaced faith leads to events that appear anomalous and worrisome. It also mitigates against a deeper understanding of Money.

Say to people, "money is power" and few will disagree. It's our everyday experience of it. It transforms our needs and wants into comfort and satisfaction. That's akin to magic.

At least, you could forgive a child for thinking so. As a child, I was entranced by money. I treasured my collection of coins. I'd hold one in my palm, feel it's weight, and imagine it's journey from mint, through pockets, via tills, in and out of banks, until it's final rest with me.

Coins provide our children with their first introduction to the power of money. Their innocence grants them an insight denied to us.

Parents unconsciously hint at the greater distance of our economic relationships as they accompany the first purchase of sweets or toys with the customary 'Give the man the money'. Later, we teach children to count their change; a lesson in the different trust levels in economic exchange. Children know that money is something extra-ordinary.

There is a sense of the sacred about money. It has 'other-worldly' qualities.

Money is metaphysical. Cash and bank balances are our tokens and our measures. Money is metapsychical. It exists outside of our consciousness. Like time. Or, if you believe in such things, a God-concept.

Science just doesn't have the grasp for it. Money is so involved with what we are as beings, and who we are as people, that it remains a 'fuzzy' idea.

Money exerts an influence on all human life. It appears to us, through the lens of a market, as Price. A unique, momentary conglomeration of information.

Money determines the price of everything because it knows the value of nothing.

Our experience of Money is that it's a force against which we sometimes cannot stand. The cost of things always has to be reckoned with. Sometimes the things that are dearest to us die because of a lack of money. We struggle to live with the Power of Money and yet we neither love it not hate it. We just accept it as the way of things, and build our lives around it.

Price is to Money as weight is to gravity. They are both mundane measures of profound powers.

Money influences social systems and produces changes in behaviour. Price is the measure through which know money. Gravitation acts upon things with mass, causing them to attract one another. Weight is the measure through which we know gravity.

Its difficult to comprehend that our weight is not ours. We have mass, gravity gives us weight. Its even more difficult to comprehend that money is not ours. Money is the name we give to a force that we don't understand.

That's my take on it.

Here's someone else's:
By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as omnipotent. . . . Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.

Karl Marx - The Power of Money, 1844
Here's a like to the entire article.

The Manifesto of Independence

2009-01-30T20:24:00.019Z

Manifesto

A spectre is haunting Music -- the spectre of Digital. All the powers of old Music have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: RIAA and Universal, BPI and EMI, MCPS-PRS alliance and MediaDefender.

Where is the Artist in opposition who has not been decried as encouraging thievery by its opponents in power? Where is the musician that has not hurled back the branding reproach of pirate, against the more advanced streaming media sites, as well as against P2P networks?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Digital is already acknowledged by all Music powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Free Thinkers should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Digital with a Declaration for the Artists themselves.

To this end, Free Thinkers of various nationalities have assembled in CyperSpace and sketched the following Declaration, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

The Declaration of Independence of Music

When in the Course of human creativity, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the economic bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of Music, the separate and equal rights to which Justice and Moral Authority entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Music is created equal, that it is endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Reproduction, Distribution and the right to Perform. --That to secure these rights, Copyright is instituted among People, deriving its just powers from the consent of the Creator, --That whenever any Form of Commerce becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Copyright, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Prosperity and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Copyright long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Laws, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Artists and their audience; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Copyright. The history of the present King of Music [RIAA] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over Music. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have persecuted through the courts people guilty of no other crime than the enjoyment of music.

They have treated the Internet with contempt.

They have misused and abused the power of authority by representing their own interests as if they were those of the Creators.

They have attempted to impose their will by nefarious means across national borders so as to bring into submission all people of the Internet.

They have made people afraid to listen to music on the greatest medium of modern times by denying their right to privacy.

They have prevented the free association of music, technology and people by the use of DRM.

They have misrepresented their interests by claiming that they invest in the development of new music whereas in truth their interests are best served by protecting and exploiting those rights which they already own.

They have colluded with broadcasters to feed the audience bland and unhealthy fare whilst themselves getting fat and lazy on the proceeds of their misdeeds.

They have knowingly confused and conflated in the minds of both Artists and the public the seperate and distinct notions of price and value, such that as music's money price grows its true value declines.

They have, and continue to, put stars in the eyes of our young, fostered their belief in a perverted cause which fetishises money and fame, and then cast them aside empty and desolate whilst continuing to profit from their demise even after death.

They have taken Music, which should be freely shared amongst people to grant them understanding, beauty and truth, and chained it to their own financial destinies constraining the evolution of Music and denying to the people what was freely given.

They make profane, what is sacred.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. An Institution whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of Music.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to the music business. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legal teams to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement in cyberland. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united independent music artists, in General Cyberspace, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of Music, solemnly publish and declare, That we are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Artists; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the RIAA, and that all political connection between them and the Old Music Industry, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Artists, they have full Power to write Songs, play Music, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Artists may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Please express your support for the Declaration by releasing your music so it can be freely shared.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Karl Marx and Frederik Engels in 1848.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.

Digital Evolution: Microblogging (Part One)

2009-01-23T19:15:00.003Z

Some things can be difficult to understand without having experience of them. Microblogging is very much like that.

This sounds like a convient argument for evangelists of microblogging, which it is. But it's also true. If you believe me, you can go here to set up your Twitter account, now.

Postcard, telegram, teleprinter, sms, tweet; short-form messaging combines meaning and rhythm. It can project a powerful pulse of data.

For me, running a microblog is like sending a series of text messages on my phone; just responding to a text from a friend saying 'what you doing?'. To give microblogging a proper go, my feeling was that I should tweet at least once a day. Initially, I thought it would be a chore. But it hasn't turned out like that.

The evolution of short-form message technology means I can send as many messages, as I like; and each message could be read by millions of people.

Every time I look at my Twitter home page I can see 20 messages. I tweet several times a day to my hundred or so followers. Many of them I acquired by spending a day or two choosing people to follow; after I followed them, they followed me back. People say the maximum number of social relations one person can maintain is 150 - the 'Dunbar' number. President Barack Obama is the number one twitterer. He has 165 414 followers, and he follows 168 067. Kevin Rose, the number two twitterer, has 88 202 followers but he only follows 140.

Technology increases the volume of information available to us. This creates problems. But it also creates solutions.

It's a little early in the day for me to say how many social relations I can maintain through microblogging. I reckon 150 is low, though. Some people, internet marketers in particular, follow thousands. To help them exceed the Dunbar number (so named after anthropologist Robin Dunbar who proposed the limit), many software tools are offered to assist in managing a large following. But even so, a thousand twitterers could very easily produce in excess of 5K tweets on an average day; that's a lot of messages.

Time is a limited resource for all. Some messages are read, some are not. But every message we see is assimilated by our 'ambient awareness'.

I don't read my Twitter home page, I scan it. I read only those tweets of interest to me at that moment. But I do feel like I get a sense of those people I follow. By choosing tweets to read, I'm still noticing the ones I've chosen not to read. Plus, its not just the content that tells me about you, the rhythm of delivery is important too. Most of us do similar things regularly through the day. If you don't, then we notice. Of course my *ambient awareness* isn't infallible. But if I miss something important about you, or about something that's happening, I rely on other's awarness. Important news gets re-tweeted and commented upon.

Its difficult to imagine what it would be like to *know* a thousand people. *Know*, so that what happens to them, and how they feel, affects us.

Have you had the debate about whether an 'online' friend is a 'real' friend? It seems to bug people. Of course, on Twitter you follow people, rather than 'friend' them. Generally, you don't know them, before you follow them. Say you liked flying kites. You could search Twitter for all the people who mention 'kites' in their tweets, and then work your way through the list, following anyone you like. You get to *know* them from there, through their microblog and online presence. You can easily, and without much social awkwardness, send them a public @username message. Its more akin to a smile, nod, or 'Good Morning' in normal social discourse, than it is to one to one conversation.

The biggest barrier to the uptake of microblogging is our own fear of public self-disclosure.

People worry about privacy. They worry about giving away too much of themselves, and making themselves vulnerable. I worried. Not about online scammers or any other of the internet bogeymen, though. But about the uncomfortable feeling of putting myself out there; where I could be judged. It felt odd. Anyone can read my tweets, anyone can send me a tweet @jonone100. Anyone, from anywhere, could tweet any words, to me. But most frightening of all. Taking the first steps to running a public microblog I was making myself vulnerable to the thing guaranteed to upset me most - silence.

Mutual self-disclosure is the way we get to know people. It has never been seen on this scale, before. It might change things.

We take the risk of rejection each time we connect with one another. But if neither of 'us' takes the risk, there will be no 'us'. Following rather than friending, and the public nature of the @messages, help to minimise the fear of rejection. That enables people to take more risks, and combined with the technology's huge capacity, to make more connections with more people. Microblogging increases the potential for empathy and understanding between us.

As the microblogging ritual embeds into our daily lives, it's mundane nature belies its power for self revelation.

Framing my thoughts, feelings and emotions into 140 characters, isn't just about dumping my angst into the public sphere. Although, giving a voice to frustration can sometimes be a good thing. The act of microblogging forces me to express myself. This is a revelation to my followers - and to me. A Muslim work colleague once explained to me how giving thanks to Allah five times a day, gave meaning to his life. I liked him and I was a little envious of the meaning that this ritual act gave to him, each day. I'm not saying Twitter is like religion (Tweligion) - I wouldn't be here if it was. But it does take you outside yourself. Each day, in small steps, microblogging creates my own history. It gives me context.

Perhaps I get a little carried away with possibilities. I haven't actually got out and met any of my Twitter people, yet. That, I guess, will be the next step. But I've been around long enough (on the internet) to know that behind every message, behind each and every word, there is a person. I always try to remember that.

This technology takes power from the distances that divide us, and uses it to amplify the resonance between us.

It offers us emancipation from isolation.

That's what I think about it right now. Here's what someone else says:

Laura Fitton, the social-media consultant, argues that her constant status updating has made her “a happier person, a calmer person” because the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively. “It drags you out of your own head,” she added. In an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself.

The Brave new World of Digital Intimacy - Clive Thompson
(New York Times - 7th September 2008)
You can follow Clive on Twitter @pomeranian99
Here's a link to the entire article.

An idiot's Guide to Money - 3. Burning Money

2008-10-21T10:30:00.007+01:00

When was the last time you made a sacrifice? When was the last time you chose to destroy something that had value to you? When was the last time you did something sacred?

The last time I did all of those things on the same day was on 23rd October 2007. At the time I was a bankrupt. For a week before, I kept a tenner in my back pocket. On the 23rd I burnt that £10 with my wife and son as witness. As I write this I've slipped £20 into my back pocket. In three days time on the 23rd, I'll burn that £20.

And I'll be doing a good thing.

On the 23rd August 1994 the K-Foundation burnt £1 million, cash. This single act has become the greatest artistic statement of the C20th. Pure genius.

Of course it sparked a lot of controversy. Many people were upset that they burnt the cash rather than gave it away and claim it was a waste of the money. But it wasn't wasted. The power in the money, released from the paper symbols made to inform us of its existence, has been nurtured and nourished by the telling, writing, and showing of its story. It is now a myth with power and value that far exceeds the K-Foundations original sacrifice.

When we burn money, its power is not destroyed. Its not money we sacrifice. We sacrifice our custodianship of money's power.

The promise made by the Bank of England to pay a debt due to the note's bearer still exists in the books of the Bank of England. The person who burns the notes says that the Bank of England will never be called upon to meet that debt.

By burning notes we increase the value of money without reducing the quantity.

Its true that the quantity of cash in circulation has been reduced, but the reported quantity of money (recorded in the Bank of England's books) has not been altered. The £10 debt remains on their books as real as all their other debts. It may seem counter-intuitive to say that the value of money increases with burning. But think about it. Imagine if tomorrow half of all cash disappeared. Prices in the shops would fall to chase harder for the available cash. Deflation increases the value of money. Its human nature to find greater value in diminishing resources.

Far from being wasteful, burning cash to release ourselves momentarily from the power of money is a very good thing to do for money and for ourselves. Environmental concerns excepted, burning money is good for all.

Once in a while you should show money that you are the boss. You can't show it you're the boss by buying something - that only proves how much you need money. You can't show it you're the boss by giving it away - that just makes your money the boss of someone else. The best way to show money you're the boss is to deny it; to refuse its power and to exert your own. Burn it.

Money will love you for it. Burnt cash is free money.

Respect money, it is an immense power. Remember, people who work with it every day have to wear suits. But don't worship it. You know what they say - 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. They are wrong about many things, but they maybe right about this.

Hedge your bets. Burn some of your money just to make sure. You'll feel good, after.

That's my take on it.

Here's what someone else thinks about the K-Foundation burning £1million:

I thought it was awesome in some ways, very funny in others; quite liberating. It burned well - very clean flames. I'd like to know if it was Newton on the fifties, but he's represented anyway - he organised the Royal Mint, and that's interesting because Newton was kind of the bridge between Magic and The Age of Reason. On the one hand he was an alchemist and yet, on the other, he was the father of all contemporary science. He had the last remaining stone maypole in London made into the base of his telescope.

William Blake called the Age of Reason 'Newton's sleep', the falling asleep to anything beyond rationality and reason ... spiritual values. This film was Newton's bed clothes on fire. It's what money represents which is the important thing magically. Anyone's probable immediate reaction is 'Why didn't you give it to charity?' they mean 'Why didn't you give it to me?'

Alan Moore, Writer & Occultist

This is a link to the entire article.

An idiot's Guide to Money - 2. Financial Crisis

2008-10-16T16:03:00.005+01:00

As we all know, money can solve any problem. Ask a Doctor how she can save more lives, and she'll say with more resources. Ask a Policemen how he can cut crime, and he'll say with more funding. Ask bankers how to save the economy in the face of financial crisis, and they'll say with more money.

And don't forget those poor Africans. Sir Bob and Bono have both told us that they need more money too. Make poverty history is what they say.

So how do we get all the money we need?

Easy.

1. We increase the value of the money. To do this, we make and do stuff cheaper.

2. We increase the quantity of money. To do this we make promises, and keep them.

So when prices are falling and promises are being kept, money is created. But when prices are rising and promises are being broken, money is destroyed.

Generally, things have been going well for us since WW2. Technology has helped us to do most things cheaper than before. And promises - 'I promise to pay the bearer of this note etc' - have (for the most part) been kept.

So what's the trouble?

Its yer 'flations mix, mate !

1. Deflation increases the value in money, inflation decreases the value in money.

- Falling prices mean that £1 buys more, rising prices means £1 buys less.

2. Inflation increases the quantity of money, deflation decreases the quantity of money.

- Rising prices mean that more £1s are needed to buy the same stuff, falling prices mean that less £1s are needed to buy the same stuff.

The bad news is that we don't really understand inflation and deflation. We can never even be sure which one's the goodie and which one's the baddie, because it entirely depends on your position.

Governments will keep trying to sort it out. Its all they can do. But there are no guarantees that anything will work. No 'one' really knows what the value of money should be, nor the quantity of money needed. That's the point of money, really. I don't decide. You don't decide. Our conflicts of interest are played out through the market, and magically a value/quantity is set.

When money isn't there to help us do that, history shows us that the same conflicts of interest are played out through famine, social unrest, and war.

That's my take on it anyway.

Here's someone else's:

'..there is an unceasing conflict between the interests of debtors, who seek to enlarge the quantity of money and who seek busily to find acceptable substitutes, and the interests of creditors, who seek to maintain or increase the value of money by limiting its supply, by refusing substitutes or accepting them with great reluctance, and generally trying in all sorts of ways to safeguard the quality of money.'

Glyn Davies - A History of Money (1994) p30

________________________________

PS. I've left out a ton of important stuff particularly on interest rates, and supply and demand for money (inflation increases the quantity of money is a contentious thing to say - monetarist's think that having too much money in the economy causes inflation). I also was tempted to go into the power dynamics of moneyied relations (which Glyn Davies touches on) [tip - substitute the word debtors with 'the poor' and creditors with 'the rich]. Best to save that for another time though, I think.

An Idiot's Guide to Money - 1. Secrets and Lies

2008-10-09T10:43:00.010+01:00

Image via WikipediaThere's part of me that gets very excited about the financial crisis. I was a young teenager when the cold war was at its hottest, and the prospect of nuclear war was in people's minds. I remember feeling both fear and excitement - it would be terrible because people would die, but also exciting because the world would change forever. I guess my excitement over the financial crisis comes from the same place in my head. Of course, I would never tell anyone this - I'm only saying it here because I trust you not to tell anyone. As a grown-up you have to keep secrets. There's certain things you don't discuss in front of the kids.

Banking is all about secrets. As crunch turns into crisis, these secrets are being exposed. The shock we feel is akin to a child witnessing a primal scene - 'you have to do that, to make me?'. The modern banking system has been pretty good a keeping its secrets covered up. Our governments have no real choice but to collude with the banks. Human beings always seem to need someone to lie to them. Whether its preachers, politicians, or bankers we need someone to take on the responsibility of allaying our fears. Post WWII its worked well; long periods of feeling safe, punctuated by occasional bouts of fear (but with the sweet pill of someone to blame).

The soundbite of the moment seems to be the 'real economy'. Poe-faced pundits have hauled out this old chesnut to attempt to put some distance between the firms who deal in money and the firms who deal in stuff. It's bit like saying 'make love' rather than 'have sex'. And its a rather pernicious lie. If the making and doing part of the economy did really separate from the financial part, we'd have real problems. I'd find myself trying to swap 10 minutes driving for a loaf of bread. Money acts as medium of exchange. Its the oil for the economic engine. Try running your car without oil if you want to test the analogy ;o)

Image via Wikipedia

It might seem odd to you but I have a lot of sympathy for bankers and politicians. We need secrets. To protect secrets we need lies. And to tell lies we need liars. The people I don't have too much sympathy for are the 'morally outraged'. This might sound harsh, but if you've spent your working life taking a wage from a government agency or institution and the value of your pension has just dropped by 30% - tough. If your home is losing more value each day than you earn - tough. If you're worried about the future - join the club, Sherlock. The greater your faith in the words of the false prophets - of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, and Mervyn King - the harder events will hit you.

And even if you lose all your money and your house - and I do know how that feels - you'll still be better off than most people in the world. Do you remember the debt relief campaign? The combined US and UK bailout is about $1.5 trillion ($700m plus £500m). The combined debt of world's poorest 49 countries - over which Sir Bob and Bono made such a fuss - is a mere $375 billion. (Thanks to Some French Guy for bringing this to my attention). I'm sure most people would find this outrageous. Personally, I don't think its that simple. The US itself has a national debt of $10 trillion (some people reckon its nearer $60 trillion when you account for social spending). You could look at that and say that the level of debt of a country is directly related to the wealth and well-being of its population. In other words, the higher your debt, the better off you'll be. The logical conclusion is that to improve the lot of it's people the world's poorest nations should take on more debt, not less.

I studied Economic History at the London School of Economics - the same place many of the bankers and politicians would have learnt about economics. At the end of three very enjoyable years I was more aware than ever that no-one really knows what money is. Seriously. Myself, I think it's a magical, wonderful, beautiful phenomenon that brings us both pleasure and pain. Its not just figures on a bank's books, nor the pieces of paper and metal we hand over the bar. Its much more than that. We each have a deep relationship with this unique power. And we're a long way from understanding it. In the end, maybe that's why we need all those secrets and lies.

A word on Microblogging and Twitter

2008-10-07T10:29:00.005+01:00

Image via CrunchBaseImage via CrunchBaseWho Microblogs?
When I first came across twitter (the original internet micro blogging facility) I didn't really think it was important. I was wrong. Twitter allows you post 140 characters - a micro blog. Some people, like me, use it as a daily update to let people know what I'm up to. Mostly it looks like a reply to a moblie phone text asking 'what you doin?' - personal, friendly, but essentially factual and functional. jonone100's twitter feed

Other people use twitter to 'life stream'. In other words they update many times a day and will tell you what they're doing, what they are thinking, what they are listening too, how they are feeling, etc, etc. Personally, I find these life stream tweets (a tweet is the name given to a single post on twitter) dull in the extreme. I think less can be more.

A further group of people use microblogging to market goods and services to you. While this can be annoying, it can also be useful and entertaining. I follow one guy (follow means read the posts of) who is into the Internet and goes to seminars on web 2.0 and other such things. Its not like he trys to sell you stuff; he'll post relevent links, some music, the odd book recommendation. He also lets you know about his own projects through his posts. All of this I find very useful - he strikes the right balance with the frequency of posts. He keeps it personal without boring me with mundane detail. nick levine's twitter feed

Why is it called a Feed?
Because a microblog is a small and simple bit of information its easy for the wizards of technology to do all sorts of things with it - they can feed your information into other services. You can put twitter feeds into your newsreader (if you don't know what this is don't worry), or you can have it appear in a widget on your igoogle page (or pageflakes or any other personalisation service). So for example when I boot up my computer something like this appears on my home page.

So from this widget I can read all the posts (tweets) of the people I'm following, and I can also post myself without visiting twitter at all. You can get this widget for free from 32hours.com/betwitteredinfo/ (but you'll need to know about igoogle and I haven't posted about that yet !). If you have an iphone you can get a widget for that too.

My favourite thing to do with my twitter feed though is to create a picture from it. You'll see this picture on my blog. Its this:

This simple facility is really cool. It updates from my twitter feed automatically. So although it appears to your computer as a static image, it actually updates everytime you do. The advantage is that you can stick a static image nearly anywhere - in the footer of your emails (I'll tell you how to do this is your gmail footer at a later date) or in your online profiles. No need to get complicated with burning rss feeds - just cut and paste the image URL. Once you have a twitter account, you get your own from twitsig.com. Its free, so say thank you to the nice man.

Another thing you can do with your twitter feed is use it to update your status on facebook, myspace or any similar social network. This is really handy as it provides an 'information pulse' for your friends. To integrate twitter into facebook use the twitter application. I haven't got the myspace twitter sync working yet (but my twitter feed is already displayed through my twitsig picture).

Why do I want to know what you're doing?
I use my twitter feed to primarily to keep people informed about my availability for driving work. People still call me up and ask if I'm available (you're not going to beat talking to someone directly) but the twitter feed acts as a reminder to them, and it stops them calling when I'm working. If my tweet says 'on my way to Glasgow' no-ones going to call to see if I can do a job in Brighton.

Work availability is just one thing, you can use your feed for whatever you like. Events you're attending, music you're listening to, your bowel movements - the possibilities are endless. Just don't expect me to follow you if you're going to tweet everytime you use the toilet.

I tend to follow people I know personally. Although I'm quite into following people with whom I have some shared interest. And this is the most amzing thing about microblogging - by following people's tweets you begin to feel like you get a sense of who they are. I know it might seem odd, but try it. The world is a funny place full of syncronisities and serendipities. Microblogging helps you to see more of them.

13/10/08 - I found this which might be of interest (its from a blog I follow)

What’s Twitter? 5 Things Your Business Needs to Know

Bad News on Touring

2008-08-23T17:47:00.000+01:00

No. Not Bad News on Tour. (That'd be cool). Bad news on touring. According to Billboard (the american Musicweek) the people involved in staging tours in the USA are gloomy about the prospects for ticket sales this coming Autumn. They reckon the fuel price rises and the credit crunch mean that less people will be going to gigs. And of course, cost rises will impact on tour profits, and the credit crunch upon promoters ability raise capital. This creates a bit of a problem for the music business. Since we've stopped buying CDs, they've been pushing the idea that live music is where the real money is hiding. That may well be true for the handful of mega-artists that earn big from their stadium tours (The Stones, Madonna etc), but for many artists, touring costs money - in particular for new artists. Record companies have always provided 'tour support' - effectively, they've paid for you to listen to and see their artists play live.

So the last thing the record companies need now is for the live sector to start having a hard time. The buzz words in the last few years has been 'the 360 degree' deal. Basically, it means taking a share of all the artists rights - recording rights, publishing rights, live rights, and merchandise rights. Record company execs will have to find a new story to tell the banks - that might be quite tricky, because there's more bad news.

The billboard article reckons that agencies like William Morris are starting their own record companies. Well, I say record companies - they already perform the most important record company functions (promoting the artist, for example) and I guess it'd be easy enough to contract their artists for recording rights. Manufacturing has been outsourced for years. If starbucks can do it then William Morris surely can. Plus - cue a plug for an earlier post - record companies are actually record agencies, anyway.

In other news.... according to Musicweek the live scene in the UK has a different problem - a skills shortage. Thankfully, a government agency has come to the rescue and is going to run some sort of apprenticeship scheme at some point in the future. Phew. I bet every international arena-filling artists has heaved a huge sigh of relief. The show can go on. Except that it might not be earning as much money as before. Live Nation have put a very positive spin on quite a drastic fall in profits. And my own impression is that things for smaller promoters aren't looking too good either. I took this picture from the main stage of a 'boutique' festival I was working this summer - it wasn't at dawn. It was mid-evening on the Friday. Even the great Glastonbury seemed a just tad less than impregnable this year with tickets still on sale right up to the festival.

Things are generally looking a bit gloomy, then. The live sector is down due to the wider economic downturn. Merchandise will fall because of this. The record industry is completely knackered anyway. That leaves the artists just waiting for their publishing cheques. Still every cloud has a silver lining. The gossip is that GUT records are going bust - so no more the crazy frog! On discussing this news with a colleague I was told that GUT's boss, was also responsible for Tom Jones's comeback - obviously a good thing which does go some way to make up for unleashing that fucking frog. My commiserations to GUT employees and owners alike.

Hamfatter, Peter Jones, and the business of music.

2008-07-28T11:34:00.002+01:00

Description: This is about a band that appeared on the BBC2 program Dragon's Den (you can watch it until Sun 3rd Aug if you've not seen it) who were seeking investment to enable them to record a new album. Their single came out last week. Peter Robinson at the Guardian has offered his opinion of the band - awful - and what adopting this sort of entrepreneurial model (of bands finding 'angel' investors) would mean for the future of music - Peter is unenthusiastic.

I watched Hamfatter do their thing on Dragon's Den. I then switched off. I should like this show. Somtimes I've enjoyed the drama to which the format lends itself, but equally I've found it cringe-making in the extreme. And my biggest problem is that I can't stand the Dragons. Peter Jones in particular.

I think the Hamfatter manager dude did a good pitch. But what a mug punter Peter Jones turned out to be ! £75K to own a piece of the Hams (at least that's what Peter thinks he's bought). In closing the deal he used the classic 'I know people at Sony' - that line must have been used so many times! And I loved the way he tried to catch the band out by trying to get them to play a snippet of their new material. Like hearing it would have made a difference ! What a way to make an investment decision.

In recent years Venture Capitalists have been trying so hard to make us believe that there is rhyme and reason behind what they do, and that they are a serious profession. And there goes Mr 'I'm a big boy' Jones sticking his size 14s right in. Er, Peter, you've just become the Ham's agent - still he's already got the pimp suit.

I don't know why Peter Jones aggravates me so much. Maybe I'm jealous of his money, or his height, or his ability for self-delusion. But I'm sure that there's something very wrong about the Beeb taking money from me on pain of prison, giving airtime to Peter for him to self-promote, and then him taking a financial interest in a project that gets reported on the Beeb's own news! Now, to be fair to Peter that might not be such a bad punt after all. Take a financial interest in a band that are guaranteed a huge audience just by virtue of you taking a financial interest in them. Nice. And what better people to have on side than those whose fortunes are linked to yours. The Beeb's actions have made far more difference to the Hams than Peter's £75K ever could. What a Dragon's Den success story a Ham's No1 would be.

cheer up lads ! you just got 75 grand ! - The Hams

Record companies have been doing this stuff for years - they get the right relationships with the right people in the largest media companies. When there's brown envelopes involved its called Payola. When the media's involved its called cross promotion. Perhaps its fitting that the recording industry should have Peter Jones replace it. They both exhibit the same level of cool, authenticity, and clear-headed decision making skills. The gossip was that Guy Hands at EMI told his people to sign the band at any cost. I can believe it.

The band have become the plaything of the Beeb and some blokes with money - I wouldn't say unwittingly though. If they had any creative integrity prior to their Dragon's Den appearance it's x-factored it out of them. I don't think that'll bother their new agent though. I reckon Jones wants to become the C21st Branson and he'll figure that this will help him. It probably will in terms of publicity, but financially an ISA would be a better bet.

'The girl I love' - the well timed single release from the Hams - entered the singles charts yesterday at number 71 (6 places above Sam Sparro's latest). So the Ham's fans have made the purchase, and now we'll wait and see if anyone else does. No doubt Peter Jones' ~~friends and relatives~~ employees are receiving emails from him right now - 'Buy Ham, Buy Ham!'

Starting my blog

2008-07-23T17:28:00.005+01:00

The official start date for this Blog is the 23rd August 2008.

This is quite delayed. I originally intended to get something up on the internet in October 2006. That deadline passed with a few ideas mooted, but nothing practical done. I then ended up working for a year, and it wasn't until August 2007 that I really felt I needed to get on and get something up on the internet. My first attempt at a blog didn't really go anywhere. I couldn't really clarify an idea in my mind about what it was that I wanted the blog to do.

I came across Twitter - short form blogging - and thought it was an interesting development. And it would be useful for me to let people know whether I was available for work. If my blog could attract an online audience, then I should be able to get more driving work. But I also wanted to earn money from the blog if at all possible. I'd not been that impressed with the story of the million dollar homepage (the original pixel ad) - but it had stuck in my mind. After seeing the struggles other bloggers have had to monetize their blogs, I thought pixelads would be nice and simple. It'll either work, or it won't. I don't have to worry about it.

My intention is to run this blog for a minimum of 1 year (from 23rd August 2008). I reckon the worst that can happen is that my pixelad space stays empty, and I pick up a bit more driving work. can Hopefully, I earn a few quid from the pixelad, and can afford to spend a bit more time writing and a bit less driving. The only subject I won't cover on this blog will be gossip about the artists I'm driving - apart from the fact I've no real interest in it, it'd be an abuse of my position if I did so. Oh, and I really don't want to be posting about blogging too much either - just because that feels like it would become an ever decreasing circle.

There is a reason why there's a picture of a single malt from Jura attached to this post, but you need to find it out for yourself.

A Brief History of the Pre-Internet Music Business

2008-07-23T14:52:00.007+01:00

This article is about 6K words. If you prefer to download it as a pdf file you can do so here.

Here's a quick description:
This article examines the music industry from an economic and business history perspective. The claim made is that more new music is created when majors aren't dominating the market. Furthermore, it claims that to move forward into the internet age the music business must break free from its industrial mindset. This article is an adaptation of an earlier academic study.

I hope you enjoy it.

A Brief History of the Pre-Internet Music Business

Picture and description is from Wisconsin Historical Society's Photostream on Flickr

Part One

The Business of the Music Industry

The history of the music business, or for that matter any other business, cannot be usefully considered outside its environment. The environment in which the music business came of age economically was in the industrialised world of the C20th. Hence the music business is often referred to as ‘the music industry’. This reveals much about the music-money nexus. Music is produced and consumed in an industrial complex; the record company being the factory where music becomes a product, manufactured to supply the demands of their customers. Most music we hear today is filtered through such a system, where the primary function of all the major firms is, explicitly, to make the best return to their shareholders.

It is very important to keep such ideas in mind when exploring a history of the music business. Doing so reminds us that industry proclamations are influenced by the firm's 'reason d’être'. So, when the majors tell us that they need to make huge margins on the sale of their products because they invest so heavily in new talent, they’re putting effect before cause. They make huge margins because the profit motive is inherent to their corporate form (and they’re able to operate in a monopolistic environment), whereas they invest in new talent because it’s the strategy they believe will make the most money. These distinctions may seem subtle but they are important if we’re to get to the truth. The music industry would like us to believe that the interests of the music industry and the interests of music are one and the same. This history shows they’re not. When only a few firms control a big chunk of the market, and particularly when those firms feel under threat, the music industry can work directly against the interests of music. This has never been as true as it is today.

This history also touches on the question of what the value in music is, and where it comes from. Value might be an easy thing to grasp intuitively, but it’s a difficult concept to explain. Generally speaking people see value as related to price. Something that they consider to have value irrespective of price is often said to have sentimental value. Music can have great sentimental value; certain songs really mean something to us. And it’s this concept of meaning that is the most useful in understanding the core value in music.

Fundamentally, music is the ‘communication of meaning’. Value exists for the listener (and the artist) in the act of that communication of meaning. Getting a handle on the value of music helps dispel a mythology that the music industry has itself succumbed to on many occasions. The myth is that it’s the media carrier – the sheet music, the radio, the vinyl record, the cassette tape, the CD, the USB pen, the digital file – and the associated technologies, which give music its value. Carrier technology focuses music’s value at a price - a price which reflects the cost of the media carrier itself. Music technology generally, can influence music’s development and expand the musical soundscape. But music’s value has existed as long as music itself – indeed without the central ‘communication of meaning’, the surrounding technologies would be worthless. Music’s political, cultural and social impact belies its economic impact; financially the music industry is a weakling (annually, the total sales of recorded music for the whole world added up to about one tenth of Walmart's turnover). The music business worries - as all businesses do - that it hasn't got as much money out of music as it should; the myth of media carrier value helps calm those fears. Nevertheless, for music, the media carrier is a cost, not a value.

Given the centrality of the artist and the listener to music itself, it is instructive that the following history refers to them only scantly. As with any business history, institutions and corporations figure heavily. The systems of control and methods of ownership that prevail are not unique to the music industry – they seem inherent to most, if not all, corporate, industrial and capitalist forms. However, unlike other industries, the music industry is not exploiting a limited resource. Its trying to monetize the actions of the artist and the listener. In its struggle to do this it has, during the course of the C20th (and particularly in the 1960's, as I argue below), gradually begun to recognise that its profits depend upon the artist’s creativity and the listener’s ability to recognise meaning in the artist’s work.

What it has more trouble coming to terms with, is its own role in the music ecosystem. It is in essence a service industry; the largest firms act as recording agencies for their Principles – the Artists. However, in their bid to thrive they assume the nature of manufacturers that control the production process rather than agencies that facilitate it. They trade the passion for music that attracts artists, for the security of income that attracts finance. They consume competing firms until only the very largest survive. Until eventually in the first years of a new millennium, they stand astride their territories like dinosaurs with sensitive stomachs only able to consume the blandest victuals, producing gas, defecating and staring fearfully at the digital cloud that has suddenly darkened their horizons.

The graph below compares consolidation rates (i.e. the market share of the majors) with musical creativity. The story that follows gives an explanation of the events and circumstances represented by the ups and downs of the line on the graph. There is no definitive mathematical proof that music industry monopoly crushes musical creativity, just as there is no proof that it nourishes talent. By its nature creativity cannot be directly measured and the proxy used here – new music genres – is a subjective measure. Even so, to put it plainly, to me it seems both intuitive and obvious that when four large corporations control up to 90% of the industry, music is bound to suffer. You, dear reader, are invited to draw your own conclusion.

Part Two

The Music Industry doing Business

The market for music and music technology precedes the birth of the music industry by several hundred years. Musical notation was born in the medieval monasteries and it allowed monks to perform a specific musical piece; prior to this music existed only in memory. The invention of the piano, or rather its immediate predecessors, had an enormous impact on the way music itself was to evolve as it gave a clear ‘scaling’ of notes to which our ears soon became accustomed. Opera was a significant musical adaptation which also had a social impact, pushing music squarely into the political arena. The power of music to affect social change was recognised early on by the state and monarchs who sought to ban those performances they felt subversive.

A shift in the potential of music as both an art form and a commercially saleable product came at the end of the 19th century with the development of sound recording techniques. It was Thomas Edison who invented the phonograph in 1877, but his primary purpose lay in the reproduction of speech for dictation and education. Technological advances in the quality and ease of recording followed, but it wasn’t until the Columbia Phonographic Corporation noticed the interest its products attracted at fairs and penny arcades that sound recording’s potential for entertainment was really recognised.

In the early years of the 20th century there followed a battle of technologies between the disc and the cylinder. The competitive advantage was with the disc because 1000's of pre-recorded ebonite discs could be duplicated from a single zinc plate master recording, whereas the cylinder could only be produced in batches of 200. The standardisation of the carrier format was complete by 1914 when the patent for the disc, held by the Victor Company, expired facilitating an entry into the market by smaller entrepreneurial firms. This stage in the development of the music industry can be characterised as a shift to software. Previously pre-recorded music had been used as a way to encourage the sale of gramophones, but now, in the first decades of the C20th, the potential for the sale of recordings themselves was seen as the business model of the future.

Traditionally, music had been commoditised and sold by publishing sheet music so that songs could be performed by customers in their own homes. When a song became a hit, this was a lucrative business. Publishers could easily and cheaply obtain product as songwriters were often poor and would sell their songs outright. The biggest difficulty and largest expense was the promotion of the song. Prior to the invention of radio, promotion was done by persuading the leading performers of the day to sing the publisher’s songs, or getting them included in a successful stage production. The coming of radio meant that it became the radio stations (and eventually their disc jockeys) who needed persuading. Publishers would sell their sheet music whether the radio station played live music or pre-recorded music; the underlying dynamic - to achieve maximum exposure for a song - remained the same.

In the first decades of the C20th publishers sought new revenue streams. The relative decline in their income from sheet music sales made it look likely they were set to become the poor cousins of the recording companies. In the UK composers, publishers and performers were aided in securing their property rights by the Copyright Act of 1911. By 1924, the various companies that had been set up to collate and collect revenues from the reproduction of music were amalgamated into the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society Limited (MCPS), and collections for public performance (live or pre-recorded) came eventually under the auspices of the Performing Rights Society (PRS).

In the US the situation was slightly different. A similar copyright law had been passed in 1909 to enforce the mechanical copyright of publishers; the legislation backed a publisher's claim for compensation should anyone record his song with the intention of profiting from it. However, unlike the British Parliament, United States Congress thought that the copyright owner’s consent to perform a work publicly for profit was already implied in the publication and sale of printed copies of the work [sheet music]. The difference may seem subtle but this provision of the copyright law of 1909 [the right to publicly perform works without extra payment being due] was to completely alter the way business was done in the music industry. And, in doing so, was to be the source of often bitter controversy for decades to come. The problem was one of control. A publisher could not, once he had sold sheet music prevent, or more to the point profit from, his song being performed or played; there was no legal recourse. Publishers realised that the developments in the film and radio industries would be difficult to tap as potential revenue sources.

To remedy this situation the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) was formed for the purpose of issuing licences and collecting royalties. Although formed in 1914, ASCAP did not begin issuing royalty cheques to its members until 1921. American radio broadcasters resisted pressure to make royalty payments for the records they played. Radio it was claimed, had bought the records and so, according to American law, had a legal right to play them. Besides which, playing records on the radio was tantamount to free advertising.

A battle of monumental proportions followed. ASCAP was determined to collect its royalties on radio play - which was fast becoming the major distribution media for music since its coming of age as a major commercial venture in 1921. And the broadcasters were equally determined not to pay. The broadcasters claimed that ASCAP was acting as a monopoly (which it was) and after having ASCAP outlawed in several states, eventually in 1939, the broadcasters formed Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) as a rival to ASCAP. Many of the musicians and composers who had been excluded from ASCAP (Appalachian musicians, country fiddlers, blues singers, and New Orleans jazz men) joined the BMI and began to get increasing exposure and payments for the air-play of their recordings. However, further disruption occurred in the US industry when the American Federation of Musicians called a strike in 1942 that lasted over a year. To put these problems into perspective, the US music market had the around same value in 1945 as it had in 1920, despite the significant technological improvements.

Concurrent with the problems of profiting from the new media of radio, the music industry also saw another key development in the 1930’s and 1940’s. This was the development of the ‘Star System’. Jack Kapp and Ted Lewis incorporated Decca Records in 1934. Instead of investing in machinery for the manufacture of records, Kapp focused his attention on a limited roster of heavily promoted ‘stars’. First among these were Bing Crosby and the Dorsey Brothers. As well as organising promotion for these artists, Kapp also concentrated on supplying the growing network of jukeboxes with Decca records, and perhaps most importantly, halved the retail price of a record. Jukeboxes had been popular in the South for a long time before they caught on in the north. One of the reasons for this was that they acted as an outlet for the music that didn’t get played on the radio (in particular black music).

Prior to World War Two the distribution network for music was reliant on the sales of recordings through retailers, airplay on the radio (some of which was paid for, some of which wasn’t), promotion through film, and jukeboxes. All of these methods of distributing and profiting from the sale of music had come about in the inter-war period, but had not translated themselves into increased revenues. And whilst the technology had developed, the music itself hadn’t changed much. But that change was just around the corner.

In the ten years from the end of WWII until 1955 the American music market was highly consolidated. Technological development continued with the introduction of the vinyl LP and vinyl single, which reduced production costs and was less fragile to transport than the old shellac 78-rpm recordings. The reduced costs of production did encourage independent firms to enter the market place from the early 1950’s and they gradually chipped away at the market share of the majors. By 1955 their share of the market had dropped by around 20%, but was still standing at around 75%.

The failure of the major American record companies to develop new music during the period 1948 to 1955 forms a key part of Peterson and Berger’s (1975) study of cycles in production in the music industry. Peterson and Berger were two American sociologists. They claimed that (i) the market consolidation and homogeneity of product was part of a ‘concentration-competition cycle’, and more controversially that (ii) changes in market structure precede changes in music. To maintain their control in the period to 1955, the majors adopted various tactics; these included seeking vertical integration to help control the production process, developing links with media companies to secure revenues from television and film networks, payola (a bribe to a disc jockey), putting pressure on retailers not to stock the records of other firms, churning out ‘cover’ versions of songs the instant they became a hit, and reputedly using organised crime to control the networks of jukeboxes. The nascent independent record companies were involved in dubious practices too. Often independent record producers/promoters (they were often one and the same person) would act as middle men for the majors in assuring radio play through payola.

The payola scandals of the 1950’s have been extensively reviewed in print, both in academic works such as that by Seagrave (Payola in the Music Industry), and books for the general reader like the excellent Rockonomics by Eliot. Suffice to say here, that payola is inevitable when the distribution networks are limited and access to them is restricted. Maybe the radio broadcasters weren’t too far wrong when they claimed that playing records was tantamount to advertising; something for which people are used to paying.

The years between 1955 and 1957 are a crucial period in the history of the music industry and the events surrounding the birth of Rock n Roll are important in understanding the relationship between consolidation of the market and new music. Although the majors held sway in the years to 1955 (as discussed above) there had been some crucial changes in the structure of the industry. These were to do, at least in part, with the advent of television as a medium (by 1952 there were nearly 20 million TV sets in use in the US). This of course represented an opportunity to gain exposure for music, but the events surrounding the growth of television had more complex effects.

Firstly, advertisers started to switch from radio to television - and of course many, quite wrongly, predicted the death of radio. Although the number of radio sets increased after 1955 (due to the introduction of the cheap portable transistor radio), the profits of the network radio stations continued to fall. Throughout the 1950’s radio stations tried to find show formats that would help stem the decline in their revenues. Eventually, by 1960, the idea of a single-format station had spread through the radio industry. Basically this format targeted the entire output of one station to one group of listeners (teenagers [as they were to become], housewives, or car drivers). This format increased the diversity of music that was played over the airwaves because stations would wish to play music suitable for their audience throughout the day, rather than just have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ selection of popular songs.

Secondly, a US supreme court ruling in 1948 had forced the movie production companies to divest themselves of their theatre chains. This ended their complete dominance of the distribution chain. Combined with the perceived impact of television, the American Movie Industry was in trauma. They curtailed the production of musicals which show-cased new songs, and entered the music market themselves.

However, of the movie companies that entered, only MGM played a significant role in the music market in the period 1956-9. The major impact on the market was the growth of independents; the market share of the major's had halved by 1957 (from 75% in 1955). Falling production costs, and greater access to radio helped the independents. But the real difference was in the music that they sold. Whilst the older record companies managed to pick up Buddy Holly and Bill Haley, they missed out on Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and most notably, Elvis with RCA Records paying the independent Sun a release fee of $35 000, a huge sum for the period. The furore that was created around the sexual connotations of Elvis’s gyrating hips, served to publicise and mythologise the new phenomenon of Rock and Roll.

The success of the independents in bringing to the public a new form of music had a dramatic effect on consolidation levels in the US music industry. By 1960 the four largest record companies took a market share of under 30%, and stayed there until 1964. The majors had regarded Rock and Roll as a passing fad and hadn’t fought too hard to attract successful ‘rockers’ to their labels. They reacted by price cutting and pushing the more lucrative LP’s over singles. This was short-sighted as new artists achieve public awareness through the single. They also tried to learn from the success of the independents by encouraging a new entrepreneurial section of the record company called A&R (artist and repertoire). This was a shift of emphasis from the ‘star’ system, where a known artist or performer would be ‘turned’ into a star by heavy promotion, to A&R structures, where creative talent is sought out and then placed in a more product congested market. This tacitly recognised that the real added-value for the record company was not in its ability to promote and distribute more effectively than its competition, but in the creative ability of its artists. Put simply record companies began to realise that they were recording agencies rather than record manufacturers. Hence they should direct their energies to finding the most gifted and creative artists.

However, finding nebulous talent is very difficult (if not impossible), and stories of the blunders of A&R men are well known. The most spectacular of these blunders is surely the decision by the A&R executive at Decca (in Britain) Dick Rowe, to turn down the Beatles in favour of Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. Whilst the UK and European majors had not suffered from the same distrust of monopoly as had the industry in the US, recovery from the second world war had made progress for the music industry hard. Nevertheless two European firms did make strong progress, not least in America; EMI acquired Capitol (one of the four American majors) in 1955, and Phillips (a Dutch firm) acquired Mercury (a successful American independent) in 1961, just a couple of months after terminating a ten year old distribution agreement with American major, Columbia.

The Beatles had come out of the ‘beat’ scene - a British ‘pop’ variant on Rock and Roll. After eventually signing to EMI, the Beatles began their rapid ascent to super-stardom at the end of 1962. British record companies had been keen on local artist development, and the phenomenal success of the Beatles encouraged this trend. The success also altered the balance of power between the British and American firms. Prior to 1960 American record companies had been selling large amounts of American music in Europe. The licensing of the Beatles to EMI’s American subsidiary, Capitol, was the start of a British assault on the American market. The Rolling Stones soon followed, and American companies quickly opened offices in London to tap the source of hither to undiscovered talent.

The period of the mid to late 1960’s ushered in high growth rates for the music industry both in the UK and the US. Musical innovation was at a peak, and record company executives became increasingly aware of the value of the latest sound - the days of regarding a form of new music as a ‘fad’ were gone, new music now represented new opportunities for profit. The LSD-inspired Psychedelic sounds of 1967 spread around the world very quickly. Although, born on the American west coast, British artists were very quick to experiment with these new sounds, which combined with the technological developments in the amplification of musical instruments, played a crucial roll in the success of the British acts that were coming to prominence. The years 1967 to 1970 were formative times for what were to become some of the biggest artists, and some of most popular music genres, of all time - rock music was coming of age. America’s cultural dominance of the recorded music industry was once more under assault from the British.

Back in the US, Rock and Roll had increasingly divested itself of the black roots of its music, and turned itself into a mainstream medium supported by a mostly white audience. But the black music roots of Rock and Roll soon flourished elsewhere in the form of Soul music. Soul blended itself with pop sensibilities in the form of Motown; an independent record company so successful that it actually created and sustained an eponymous genre. This success was based on finding and developing local (black) artistic talent. Amplification was also adopted by the two new black music genres to form a new genre called Funk. This style relied on the ability to produce a strong amplified bass that could cut through a band’s sound to change the rhythmic content of the music opening up a world of possibilities for old and new artists alike - foremost among the older artists was of course James Brown.

Although now steadily increasing, consolidation levels in the US market had remained very low from the watershed of 1955 right through to 1972, where less than 50% of the market was controlled by the four largest firms. There is a popular view which sees the period from the mid sixties to the early/mid 70's as modern music's golden age. Whilst one can quantify sales figures and market shares to show a picture of strong growth in this period, the value of the music produced in terms of its musical potential and its influence on subsequent generations of artists cannot be overstated. Increased competition meant that firms could not shy away from difficult and challenging artists. As Peterson and Berger (1975) say, ‘it was not until the mid-1960’s that the search for new talent became so intense that performers could demand unprecedented artistic freedom’. Record companies were also forced by the market to take risks in promoting artists who had a political agenda. Music became linked not just to rebels without a cause (as it had in the Rock and Roll years) but also rebels with a cause. Bob Dylan was pre-eminent among these politically motivated musicians, and was, according to his fans, responsible for the birth of the Folk Rock genre when he picked up his electric guitar at the Newport Folk festival.

But in the midst of this huge outburst of new music and hence new found added-value there was a steady rise in market consolidation through the late 1960’s until around 1975 (with the exception being the dip in levels of consolidation in 1969 - the year of the Woodstock festival). The increasing strength of the majors is seen as resultant from the adoption of the ‘federal system’. Essentially, this was the multi-divisional corporate form coming to the music industry. Flushed with what the firms perceived as the success of their new A&R departments in identifying new music, vertical integration became the old way to do business. Foremost among these new corporate forms were Warner Brothers. Between 1967 and 1973, Warners acquired the Atlantic, Elektra and Asylum record labels. Instead of integrating these new firms into the Warner Music company in order to reduce costs, the firms were allowed to operate as separate profit centres, developing their own artist rosters and operating in a relatively autonomous manner. However, in terms of finance, manufacturing and distribution, control remained centralised. In this way the highest area of risk was hived off to subsidiary companies, whilst the major firm at the centre attempted to minimise the risk to its revenue streams. Until the oil crises of 1973, subsidiary firms from within the same group were allowed to compete against one another, and this claim Peterson and Berger (1975) ensured that diversity was maintained despite increasing consolidation.

In the UK too, the majors seemed to be slowly tightening their grip on the market place. In 1973 the UK industry formed a trade body, the British Phonographic Institute (B.P.I.), to represent its collective interests. As such, it was some way behind the US whose Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.A.A.) was formed in 1952 for the purpose of fostering a business and legal climate that supports and promotes their members' (the record companies) creative and financial vitality. Both bodies keep a tally of unit sales and hand out gold or platinum awards commensurate with an artist's success in selling records.

So, the music industry seemed to be developing nicely, at least as far as its masters the major record companies were concerned, until 1975, when another (and some claim the last) seismic shift occurred in the music industry. The epicentre for the events of 1975 and 1976, was a small shop called SEX on the King’s Road in London. It was here that the Sex Pistols first met, and soon afterwards were launched on an unsuspecting public by the bohemian entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren. The uproar that greeted their raw, raucous music, and radical politics (or at least the radical politics that McLaren encouraged them to adopt) reached levels of hysteria and provoked establishment disapproval to rival that of the early years of Rock n Roll. By courting controversy and exposure, and getting it, the Sex Pistols became hot property for the music industry.

In fact, the Sex Pistols were too hot for many companies to handle. McLaren managed to exploit the new form and strategies that the major record companies had adopted. Constantly on the lookout for the next big thing, the record companies now noticed a steadying of the huge growth the music industry had experienced from 1965 to 1972. This wasn’t so bad for the majors because they had been increasing their share of the market. McLaren exploited the majors eagerness to find the new musical form. He first sold the recording rights to EMI, who very quickly (thanks in no small part to Cliff Richard, and public and shareholder pressure) decided against releasing a record of the Sex Pistols. EMI paid McLaren substantial damages and released the Sex Pistols from their contract - glad to be rid of them. McLaren then managed a repeat of this lucrative way of doing business with A&M records, until eventually signing to the then independent label Virgin. McLaren had exploited the major record company’s hunger for the latest thing, and profited from their fear of controversy.

Punk did have a strong musical effect in the US making heroes of their own ‘punk’ acts such as the New York Dolls, who had actually preceded the Sex Pistols. However, commercially in the US punk (at least in its rawest form) was not hugely significant. And whilst in the UK the effect of punk, and the rise of independent punk record labels are reflected in a decline in levels of consolidation, in the US disco was the new thing. Disco music, which grew out of the gay night clubs of New York, was correctly perceived as a safe bet for America’s music corporations. The songs were by and large apolitical, and the musical sound was inoffensive and certainly easier on the ears than punk. There had been some success in promoting songs through films since the demise of the Hollywood musical, but none matched the world wide film and music success of Saturday Night Fever. The industry was reminded of its past successes of using film as a method of promoting both artists and musical content. The relationship between the entertainment and media companies was set to get closer.

Disco, both in the UK and the US, helped the majors regain market share because disco had much higher production values than punk, and hence could not be effectively performed by those with limited technical skills. It also required sophisticated studio recording techniques. A similar problem had existed for the less musically skilled (although not necessarily less creative) artists in the period of concentration to 1973, where the complexity of rock music had demanded high musical virtuosity and expensive studio time.

Nevertheless, music refused to stand still. New music was created in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s whilst the major firms were suffering a diminishing share of the market. Record companies were worried about the introduction of the cassette tape, fearing that they would lose money from home taping and piracy. Although in the end vinyl sales were overcome by tape sales, the major record companies' fear of a re-recordable format was misplaced. Less paralysed by fear and more open to the possibilities for music rather than format, new independent record companies formed around new genres like New Romantic, Hip Hop, and Electro. Whilst these factors contributed to consolidation rates dropping below 50% in the UK market in 1982-3, the majors quickly recovered their position. Since then consolidation rates have remained high in both the US and the UK.

In the UK the majors increased their market share from around 55% in 1985 to around 65% in 1995. They also increased their distribution operations by acquiring or licensing more product from independent labels. This trend was accompanied by a general increase in the value of the world wide music market, leading to claims that the synergistic structure of the industry (where majors feed off independents, and independents off majors) represents a new paradigm. This paradigm is characterised, claim its adherents, by co-operation rather than competition. It’s more efficient because decreased costs make all the record companies leaner and more efficient than before.

Although the mythology of it probably tallies with the major's public relations strategy, the history of the economics of music industry shows the evidence for the co-operation paradigm to be unconvincing. The dynamic for majors to form links with independent third parties has been a constant, whether that be for snatching up new artists who achieve success with limited exposure (as with RCA’s payment to the new phenomenon of Elvis back in 1956), or for the promotion of records on radio. Back in the 1950’s it was a need to protect themselves from the payola that was rife in American radio which increased record companies need to use independents.

It is much more likely that growth in the size of the music industry in the 80's and 90's was due to the introduction of the Compact Disc (CD). The history of the music industry shows that the money-value of the market increases with the launch of popular new music carrier formats. The CD was launched at the beginning of the latest period of consolidation in the early to mid 1980’s. The invention and diffusion of the CD meant that the back catalogues of the major firms became increasingly viewed as a substantial source of revenue. As music consumers gradually replaced their vinyl LP collections with CD’s, the music industry boomed until the recession of the early 1990’s.

After a steadying out of growth, the music industry resumed its upward path as new media opportunities presented themselves. The development of music television and music video tightened the already close links between the media companies and the music industry. In the late 1990's buy-outs, mergers and take-overs have seen the music industry increasingly absorbed into the multi-national corporate world of media conglomerates, able to access and control many channels of distribution such as television and film.

In the UK the music industry seemed to be reaching the pinnacle of its acceptance into the power elites. The British Prime Minister invited the music industry - including some of its biggest stars - to a reception in Downing Street shortly after coming to power in 1997. With (adopted Brits) Sir Bob Geldof and Bono acting as spokesmen for the poor on a world stage, music's political power seemed to be reaching a new peak at the end of a very successful century. This was a welcome distraction from the stagnation, then decline, in the value of recorded music sales that was arriving with the new millennium.

The recorded music industry was the most dominant and prosperous sector of the music business during the 20th century. It helped music affirm its position as an art form both with mass appeal, and political resonance. But the industrial mindset is not sufficient to meet the challenges of the new age. The darkening digital cloud of the Internet may indeed kill the music industry. But maybe that's what music needs; for its art and for its business.

I'm not saying Latitude is middle class but......

2008-07-21T16:13:00.008+01:00

Its Monday afternoon. I returned from the Latitude festival yesterday evening. I enjoyed the festival although it was hard work for me. I was lucky to get family into the festival on guest tickets (just £20 charity donation for each one). I had a 'performers' ticket because I was working for Barry Adamson who was appearing in the BAFTA sponsored Film and Media tent late on Friday evening. My family made their own way there on Friday, while I picked up the band, crew and gear needed for the performance and drove everyone to the festival.

After the show I drove through the night to return Barry and the band to their homes and the gear to its lock-up, catching a train back to Latitude on Satuday morning. I arrived at the festival just in time to miss Bill Bailey at the comedy tent. At that point though, nothing was as attractive as sleep. I awoke at about 6pm to enjoy the evening's festivities.

This is the third Latitude festival. I was there last year driving Joe Lean and the Jing, Jang, Jong - but didn't get much of a chance to explore. The festival's setting is beautiful. Its a mix of pasture and woodland with a lake separating the performance arenas from the campsites and stalls. The line-up is quite eclectic - they had Interpol headlining on Sunday, Sigur Ros on Saturday. Perhaps they could of done with a bit of Kaiser Cheifs or something. To be honest, I'm not a fan but sometimes after a few beers (ok, actually I was drinking red wine - and worse still I'd got it in a plastic bottle from Sainsburys)....... you need something that just pushes the right buttons and makes you want to sing along.

In fact, the festival was pretty much devoid of a live act that was very pop or chanty. And I missed it - funny thing though, they had a 70s/80's disco running in the woods on Saturday night - why? People gathered in a woodland in suffolk, under a full moon, and listening to YMCA ! I was hoping for a mix of trad folk and animal sacrifice. I think many people would applaud Festival Republic for being so 'left-field' in their bill - and I'm sure any criticisms would be band-aided with the claim that they were being brave. But I'm left feeling that being brave would actually have meant putting the Kaiser Chiefs and Interpol on the same bill. I suppose what I'm saying is that music's important, but I don't go to a festival to worship it. *We* go there for music to bring *us* together.

I spent a couple of hours at the comedy tent on Sunday around midday. Rufus Hound took the piss out of the festival being so middle-class. 'I'm not saying Latitude is middle class but.....' - I can't remember now, but he filled in the '........' with loads of witty stuff. He was funny. And right to take the piss. The tent next to ours had its own toilet housed in it's own 'outhouse' tent. Surely the point of a festival is to remind us that if we have enough time and forethought to provide ourselves with our own private portaloo tent - then we're not really living life. I expressed this view to my wife - she said that it'd 'be handy if you had litte 'uns'.

So I suppose its difficult to say. We each take out of these things what we want. Anyway, below you'll find a link to a slideshow from flickr - I went through the 'Latitude 2008' photos last night. And a link to a song I was playing while I viewed the photos. Enjoy!

My Favs from photos tagged 'Latitude 2008' on Flickr

The Sixtyone (2)

2008-07-15T22:18:00.007+01:00

This post is about the sixtyone.com - my favourite music website. If you're not familiar with t61 this post will make very little sense.

t61 - the game
A month or two after I joined t61, I got into bumping songs to earn points. It felt good to pick out a song I thought would become popular, bet on it, and then earn points for picking a winner. It was nice to see the points total rising. My listening habits changed a bit. I listened to more songs for less time per song, but overall my listening increased dramatically (I'm only going from memory, here - the real figures are probably extant on t61's database). My betting behaviour changed. I became more concious of betting on something I thought others would like. I would spend, or rather invest all my points and knowing that the more I invested the greater my rewards - its not like I needed to save any for a rainy day. Then, I discovered the browse section and began cruising the new stuff. Basically, if you bump a song before others your rewards are far greater than if you are a late bumper. For a few days I battled with a few other 61er's to first bump any catchy new tune that appeared.

I couldn't stop myself from working out quite how much effort it would take to put oneself up in the rankings of the top listeners. My growth rate seemed quite reasonable, I seemed to be doubling my points every few days at the peak of my activity. But the effort it would take over an extended period to really get 'up there' ruled out any idea that I could actually become a top listener (and hence have more power to bump a song to popularity). It hadn't been a serious thought, but the desire was there. I contented myself with the goal of getting in the top 1000 listeners.

But no sooner had I really got into 'playing the game of t61' - than the site's owners changed the rules. They wanted it to be a 'music adventure'. In other words, it was supposed to be about the music, not the game. I stopped playing. For a few short days I'd listened to more new music than ever - and new music that in the main, wasn't filtered through the 'machine' of the recording industry. However, I wasn't listening as 'deeply' as before. I'd tend to listen to new stuff as work, making a decision to bump, add or discard within the first minute, and then return to a few favourites when I wanted to listen for pleasure. Every now and then though, from my listening work, a little gem would pop up and become one of those favourites

Very soon, real life forced me to take a break from t61, as I knew it would. I did make it into the top 1000 - but subsequently dropped out when I went on a points spending spree on some songs I liked.

t61 - the music genres
If you take a look at my profile and check out my music page you'll see I've tried to organise my music in a non-traditional way. Basically I think of two words which best describe the music, eg 'happy pop', 'dirty electro-dance', 'rock soundscape', 'crazy wierd' (there's some good un's in there !). This two word description then becomes the genre. I haven't set myself any firm rules yet, but I do try to keep to just one hyphenated word - otherwise I'd end up with monstrosities like 'electro-funk alternative-drumnbass'. I don't stick to known genres; the words could be purely descriptive of the feel of the music.

For me the system seems to work. What I need to find is a technological solution to make it easier just to tag a song with two words, and also auto-suggest words that I've already used. But fundamentally, choosing music based on a two word description of the general characteristics of a song seems a better solution than having a 19 year-old journalist at the NME do it for me. I'll be posting a lot on music genres, I expect. Its a subject that's dear to my heart !

As I've been in the process of writing this post, I've been back to trying to grab a few more points. I'm going to try the basic method of following the top listeners by subscribing to them and bumping what they bump. It seems an easy way to ratchet up my score quite quickly - I'll let you know how it goes.

The Sixtyone (1)

2008-07-10T12:53:00.004+01:00

The Sixtyone is my favourite music site. Its free for both audience and artist. Its easy to use because its community of users does the work for you. All you have to do to get into it, is press play. You'll discover some new music you like. A couple of artists I have the pleasure of working with have put some stuff up on there - check out Freddie Stevenson and Barry Adamson.

Its not a massive site yet. According to the61 blog the most listeners its had at any one time is around 10K. So there is a bias towards a particular genre - from what I can tell folk and singer/songwriter stuff seems well represented. That's cool with me 'cos I like it - and Freddie seems to be reaping the rewards judging by some of the comments to his tracks. However, I have seen comments that some genres - metal for example - aren't properly appreciated on the61. That may be true - but bear in mind its early days, and I was still able to hear for the first time this awesome guitar hero style instrumental rock track from Buckethead - for the moment its still set as one of my 'profile tunes'.

So that's a brief introduction to the61. My profile is here. I'll expect writing more about the61 as I get the time to do so. I think the combination of a game play structure and a community energises the site through the increased activity rates of its users (I don't think I've been as active - as a user - on any other site - except perhaps google but that's not the same thing). For me it shares something with Habbo (the great untold success story of the internet) by the way it mixes competitive and co-operative dynamics in a new and interesting way. Genres are perhaps the one area that I'm not enamoured with, but I'll save my thoughts on that for another day.

In the meantime, big thanks to the two young guys who created the site from their dorm room - James and AN Other.

Rates, Services, Vehicles, Clients and Terms

2008-07-09T17:30:00.007+01:00

Rates

I charge £100 per day to drive. A day is 8 hours, after the first 8 hours I charge £15 per hour. The hours run from when I leave my home in north west London, until I return home.

Alternatively, I also charge a 'set day rate'. This is negotiable depending on what you want me to do but is usually between £150 and £200 per day. Most of my longer term clients tend to be on a set day rate. I get PDs and buyout/catering on any work where I'm away overnight, and buyout/catering on any day over 8 hours.

If you book me for a day, I charge for a day. I do half days, just check with me if this is what you want. I'm happy to take bookings well in advance, although mostly work tends to be booked no more than a couple of weeks before the job (the exception being busy festival weekends).

Services

Most of my work comes from the music industry, and some from the film industry. If you're from outside those industries please don't let it stop you getting in touch - I like a change ! I'm often hired by managers to drive bands who don't need a fully fledged tour manager (TM), just someone sensible with experience who can get on with people. I often act as a 'lite' TM cum road manager and will always help with load out, etc. I don't tend to go away for too long - my work tends to be UK based, mostly in and around London.

In terms of film work, I've done video shoots but I have one main client, Arab Telemedia Services, for whom I do location work, transport, running and extra work. They are over in the UK for a month or two each year.

I've been driving for about 25 years. I come with my own TomTom SatNav complete with UK, Ireland and European maps.

Vehicles

I have a full (old) UK driving licence. Mostly, I drive a splitter bus or a people carrier because they are what bands use. But I can drive anything from a luxury car to a 7.5 tonne truck. For some clients I arrange the vehicle myself, but most often I get hired separately to the vehicle.

Clients

Here's a list of the bands (in no particular order !) I've worked for in one form or another in the last few years:

Electric 6

The Orb

The Enemy

The Hourly Radio

Joe Lean and the Jing, Jang, Jong

Kim Gordon (Sonic Youth)

Killing Joke

The Fight

Battle

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club

Mumm-ra

Ripchord

CSS

Freddie Stevenson

Cold War Kids

Soulsavers (with Mark Lanegan)

Transit Kings

Catthedog

Baby Strange

Boy Kill Boy

The Rakes

The Concretes

South

Jeffrey Daniel (Shalamar)

Gallows

The Script

Lethal Bizzle (and Crew)

Hotchip

Ida Maria

Hadouken

Seasick Steve

Underground Heros

The Horrors

Vincent Vincent and the Villains

Barry Adamson

Ladyhawke

Craig David

Martha Wainright

Sam Beeton

Clocks

Little Dragon

I've also done a lot of work with Area 51 Touring, Moving Space and Tiger Tours.

A Brief CV

Terms

Unless you have an agreed credit arrangement with me, or you are satisfactorily referred to me through a trusted third party, you'll need to pay me in cash at the start of the work. I always issue a full invoice.

-------------------------------------------

Anything else you need to know, just ask !

Terms

2008-07-09T16:27:00.000+01:00

Unless you have an agreed credit arrangement with me, or you are satisfactorily referred to me through a trusted third party, you'll need to pay me in cash at the start of the work. I always issue a full invoice.

Clients

2008-07-09T16:26:00.000+01:00

Here's a list of the bands (in no particular order !) I've worked for in one form or another in the last few years:

Electric 6
The Orb
The Enemy
The Hourly Radio
Joe Lean and the Jing, Jang, Jong
Kim Gordon (Sonic Youth)
Killing Joke
The Fight
Battle
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club
Mumm-ra
Ripchord
CSS
Freddie Stevenson
Cold War Kids
Soulsavers (with Mark Lanegan)
Transit Kings
Catthedog
Baby Strange
Boy Kill Boy
The Rakes
The Concretes
South
Jeffrey Daniels (Shalamar)
Gallows
The Script
Lethal Bizzle (and Crew)
Hotchip
Ida Maria
Hadouken
Seasick Steve
Underground Heros
The Horrors
Barry Adamson
Ladyhawke
Craig David
Martha Wainright
Sam Beeton
Clocks

I've also done a lot of work with Area 51 Touring, Moving Space and Tiger Tours.

Vehicles

2008-07-09T16:25:00.000+01:00

I have a full (old) UK driving licence. Mostly, I drive a splitter bus or a people carrier because they are what bands use. But I can drive anything from a luxury car to a 7.5 tonne truck. For some clients I arrange the vehicle myself, but most often I get hired separately to the vehicle.

Services

2008-07-09T16:24:00.000+01:00

Most of my work comes from the music industry, and some from the film industry. If you're from outside those industries please don't let it stop you getting in touch - I like a change ! I'm often hired by managers to drive bands who don't need a fully fledged tour manager (TM), just someone sensible with experience who can get on with people. I often act as a 'lite' TM cum road manager and will always help with load out, etc. I don't tend to go away for too long - my work tends to be UK based, mostly in and around London.

In terms of film work, I've done video shoots but currently have one main client, Arab Telemedia Services, for whom I do location work, transport, running and extra work. They are over in the UK for a month or two each year.

I've been driving for about 25 years. I come with my own TomTom SatNav complete with UK, Ireland and European maps.

My Pixel Ads

2008-07-09T13:48:00.003+01:00

If you want to advertise on my blog you can purchase a pixel ad. The easiest way to explain this is to show you:

Your pixel ad can also be hyperlinked to enable visitors to visit your web page.

After looking around to see what ways there were to earn money from my blog, pixel ads seemed the best choice for me. It's easy for the advertiser to work out if a pixel ad is value for money, and the viewer gets the message without it impacting on their enjoyment of my site.

So here's the deal: A Pixelad runs from 23rd August 2008 until 23rd August 2009. The total amount of space available is set at 400 pixels for the year. Pixels purchased after 23rd August can be discounted depending on the time they have left to run.

You need to supply an image, hyperlink and some text (10 words max). You can request any shape you like that can be made out of pixel squares, so long as it fits into the remaining space. I have the final say on the overall layout.

For 2008/9 - 1 pixel for 1 year costs £100.00. Email me (jonone100 at gmail dot com) for a rate card. Discounts are fixed depending on number of pixels. Deferred payment terms are available to current clients and suppliers.

---------------------------------

If you run a blog yourself and want to advertise on mine, please talk to me. I might want to buy some of your pixelad space.

Driving Rates

2008-07-09T10:17:00.004+01:00

I charge £100 per day to drive. A day is 8 hours, after the first 8 hours I charge £15 per hour. The hours run from when I leave my home in north west London, until I return home.

Alternatively, I also charge a 'set day rate'. This is negotiable depending on what you want me to do but is usually between £150 and £200 per day. Most of my longer term clients tend to be on a set day rate. I get PDs and buyout/catering on any work where I'm away overnight, and buyout/catering on any day over 8 hours.

If you book me for a day, I charge for a day. I do half days, just check with me if this is what you want. I'm happy to take bookings well in advance, although mostly work tends to be booked no more than a couple of weeks before the job (the exception being busy festival weekends).

There's a label cloud to over there -> . Click clients to find a list of clients, terms to find out my terms, etc...... Anything else you need to know, just ask. You can email me at jonone100 at gmail dot com. I'm very happy to chat on the phone but don't want to put my number up here, so please just email me if you need to talk.