The May election

[Barbirollians]

I fear the whole campaign will be marked by endless dissonance .

[MrGongGong]

I fear the whole campaign will be marked by endless dissonance .

One persons dissonance blah blah blah

[ahinton]

'The May election'? Is she definitely standing as Tory leader then?

No such announcement has been made because they're all still standing behind their present leader for the time being, of course (although how far behind him and what some of them might have in their hands while doing so might be open to question), but there has been no shortage of speculation as to who might sup of this poisoned chalice should the Decameron either decide to throw in the taxpayer-funded towel or be pushed - and her name has tended to come up rather more often than others in that context. Again, however, if no two parties can manage to form a coalition in the aftermath of that election, the matter of who leads or might come to lead this or that party will presumably be thought to have declined in importance to all but the possible contenders.

[ahinton]

"Tuning is a function of time" : La Monte Young

and what of microtonality ?

What indeed? - but, in using the expression "in tune", I did not seek to confine its intended meaning as falling only within a tuning system in which an octave is divided into 12 equal parts (and I doubt that anyone ever drinks a gin and semitonic even in the House of Commons Strang(l)ers Bar)...

[ahinton]

I fear the whole campaign will be marked by endless dissonance .

No change there, then!

[ahinton]

One persons dissonance blah blah blah

is another person's missing apostrophe - not that the election concerned is in any case likely to produce anything remotely resembling a victory sufficient to encourage senior members of the victorious party to sing "Varèse, a jolly good fellow", methinks...

[Roehre]

British politics seem to be very childish by definition (us against them), and you only have got to have som 35-40 % of the popular vote to be able to govern in a kind of elected dictatorship: On these isles that's called "democracy".
In other countries it's often "us together with them", representing at least 50% of the popular vote.
Here all parties seem to be convinced that what they are preaching is as good as the gospel itself, what the others say is by definition rubbish. It's either - or. No-one seems to be interested in governing for the good of the country, but put party politics and their ever changing manifestos first.
Very arrogant, very childish.

[MrGongGong]

What indeed? - but, in using the expression "in tune", I did not seek to confine its intended meaning as falling only within a tuning system in which an octave is divided into 12 equal parts (and I doubt that anyone ever drinks a gin and semitonic even in the House of Commons Strang(l)ers Bar)...

Equal Parts?

Schoenberg was "right" then?
But maybe he was a bit more "left"?

VOTE Partch

[MrGongGong]

is another person's missing apostrophe - not that the election concerned is in any case likely to produce anything remotely resembling a victory sufficient to encourage senior members of the victorious party to sing "Varèse, a jolly good fellow", methinks...

Here you go '


A friend of mine told me a story (myth?) about going to hear Feldman speak. Feldman was asked about a seemingly incongruous note in a piece. He replied that it should have been in a previous composition but he had forgotten to put it in so put it in the next piece he wrote.

In this spirit I now include some other missing punctuation

',.'.''.,.''.,.,.''...,.''.'.,.'.,.'.,..'.,..'.""

[ahinton]

Equal Parts?

Schoenberg was "right" then?

I made a remark, not a value judgement! That said, Schönberg was right about quite a lot, methinks.

But maybe he was a bit more "left"?

He's "left" an immensely valuable legacy, that's for sure.

VOTE Partch

Just as one should never speak ill of the dead, conventional wisdom seeks to persuade that one shouldn't vote for them either. In any case, why would one want to vote for someone whose principal claim to fame is one-upmanship? We are most of us familiar with 42 as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", but what did I'm-so-wild-about Harry have to do? Create 43-tone scales, that's what! I suppose that the only possible mitigating factor in this is that, as such scales were comprised of unequal intervals, his legacy might at least be seen as compatible with the kinds of inequality whose perpaturation would be expected of a May government should one such ever be formed.

[ahinton]

Here you go '


A friend of mine told me a story (myth?) about going to hear Feldman speak. Feldman was asked about a seemingly incongruous note in a piece. He replied that it should have been in a previous composition but he had forgotten to put it in so put it in the next piece he wrote.

In this spirit I now include some other missing punctuation

',.'.''.,.''.,.,.''...,.''.'.,.'.,.'.,..'.,..'.""

But when one considers just how few notes Feldman usually put into any composition, forgetting to include as many as one such in a piece is surely carelessness of the highest order that could not conceivably be remedied by including it in a later one?!

[greenilex]

The rest is Steve.

[ahinton]

The rest is Steve.

"The rest"? Don't you mean "the Reich"? (as in Sorabji's sardonic remark "we've had the Third Reich - now we have The Steve Reich; how many less could we have?")...

[Serial_Apologist]

British politics seem to be very childish by definition (us against them), and you only have got to have som 35-40 % of the popular vote to be able to govern in a kind of elected dictatorship: On these isles that's called "democracy".
In other countries it's often "us together with them", representing at least 50% of the popular vote.
Here all parties seem to be convinced that what they are preaching is as good as the gospel itself, what the others say is by definition rubbish. It's either - or. No-one seems to be interested in governing for the good of the country, but put party politics and their ever changing manifestos first.
Very arrogant, very childish.

But, for all the alternative voting systems in play elsewhere in the world, governments don't seem much better than ours (of whichever "persuasion") at coming up with solutions to what in the end are problems inherently systemic within capitalism. So, given the limited room within the given options - and "third way" ideas seem to have been ruled outwith debate if the deafening silence amounts to a tacit admission that the establishment commentariat has run out of ideas - one should not be surprised that the purportedly much-sought middle ground occupies so tight a space for manoeuvre as to constitute no kind of democratic choice in the public mind.

[rauschwerk]

But, for all the alternative voting systems in play elsewhere in the world, governments don't seem much better than ours (of whichever "persuasion") at coming up with solutions to what in the end are problems inherently systemic within capitalism.

Keynes recognised that capitalism could work for the good of all if strictly regulated - hence the post-war Bretton Woods agreement with its fixed exchange rates and severe restrictions on capital flow across borders. For the 20 years before the 1973 oil price shock, there were no recessions in this country (though growth was admittedly patchy). But the rich and powerful had already started lobbying governments to gradually dismantle that agreement (whilst rubbishing Keynes's work). Now we are in the outrageous situation where, in effect, only one set of economic theories (the 'neo-classical' ones which benefit the rich and powerful) are studied in universities. Could that be because research in those places is funded by the rich and powerful? I fear so.