The Greatest Album Of The Decade?

An abundance of controversy surrounds Gaga’s sophomore LP release, Born This Way. The album’s first eponymous single was the subject of an argument that the artist had exploited the homosexual world in order to promote her music. Subsequent release ‘Judas’ fared little better, with Catholic groups worldwide chastising the offering as nothing more than a cheap attempt to appear relevant. Unveiling the album’s artwork fuelled further criticism: the most poignant comment suggested the welding of Gaga to a motorbike was akin to a rejected ‘Terminator’ extra.  

For a disc that has been touted “the greatest album of the decade”, this image leaves a great deal for the material to negate. Gaga is not ignorant of such a fact. Her album delivers on its promise of being packed full of “sledgehammering dance beats”. Yet she manages to weave quite an intricate and delicate mix of social issues into her album nonetheless. The artist sings out in support of feminism, of gay rights, of romance (bad, or otherwise). Despite its party beat, the album’s message is to be true to oneself.

This is hammered home throughout. Opener ‘Marry The Night’, begins “I won’t give up on my life: I’m a warrior queen, live passionately tonight”. Its sombre start of organ chords highlights that this is an album of serious matter, regardless of how quickly these notes fade into a synth extravaganza that climaxes with an ever faster tempo. Single releases ‘Born This Way’ and ‘Judas’ follow in succession. Already, the album has set up stall as a fist-pumping anthem of self-loving and self-respect. 

“I wanted people to know that I really made a record” said Gaga when introducing the iTunes countdown to the release. Promotional singles have come thick and fast in the immediate pre-release period and these have noted the new directions of the artist. With such a plethora of influences, Gaga’s main challenge in this album was always going to be striking a balance that made the album flow neatly. “I wanted people to know that it was something that needed to be heard in its entirety.” Indeed, there is something much more rewarding from a complete listen: We journey through insecurity, to thanking all those who have been part of our lives, and all the Judas, Americanos and Bad Kids in between. These aren’t simply Gaga’s influences: it’s an album that is adaptable to all its audience.

Reinforcing such an ethos, Gaga picks at her varied and diverse fan base. ‘Americano’, a Spanish guitar track with flamenco flare, tackles forbidden love and immigration laws in one sophisticated swoop. Elsewhere, ‘Scheiβe’ infuses house and techno as an album highlight, yet tells women to respect themselves; you don’t need to speak German to “fight for your rights” and stop the… inequality. Rock-led ‘Bad Kids’ talks to every apathetic teenager in search of identity: “I’m a bitch”, “I’m a jerk”. There is a certain lavishness in Gaga’s creativity: she is sassy and silly on the one hand,  warbling to be “your hooker” and “as free as my hair”, and yet these indulgent metaphors are belted out with true feel and emotion, as well as being the most innovative expression tacts in twenty-first century pop. After all, in a cultural sense, Gaga proclaims herself to “just speak in future tense”.

When Gaga eventually slows her juggernaut for some evanescent melodies, their fragility is far from ballad relaxation. In fact, the album continues its dependence on synth-electronic revival. This is by no means detractive from the impact of the songs themselves: ‘Heavy Metal Lover’ is a smooth critique on fast lifestyles, and so the juxtaposition between subject matter and tempo creates a sensuous backdrop before which the sexual whims of washing a pony down are played out against fantasies of ruling the world. Again, Gaga masters the euphemism in a way that sees her graduate stylistically from simply “bluffin’ with her muffin”. 

‘You and I’ is a sumptuous charting of “lonely nights and lipstick on your face”, with a piano lead incorporating a sample from none other than Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You’ (a subversive reinforcing of the greatest album motto?), whilst ‘The Edge of Glory’ declares “we’re on the edge of something final we call life”. Gaga does not hesitate to reinforce the image of transcendence, and it is to her credit. “Put on your shades, cause I’ll be dancing in the flames”: she appears to purify herself at the end of an album full of blasphemy and dizzying pop synths, whilst adding an injection of jazz sax that is ever so refreshing.

Nonetheless, there is room for lyrical improvement. For all Gaga’s party pumping beats, there are few phrases that make a profound impact. As is often the case with tracks whose base is a party atmosphere, everything is quick, loud and explicit. Gaga manages this aspect well: where there could have been loss of focus, she remains succinct and to the point. However, in her straight talking, there is often a lack of an inspirational word or two: “I’m living on the edge of the law” and “Don’t be a drag, just be a queen” appear somewhat cliché additions to the artist’s resume. Maybe to be too deep is to miss the point, however. “This album is for you” reads the inlay: everyone is able to take away their own interpretation of the lyrics. And with tracks such as ‘Judas’ and ‘Scheiβe’ on the setlist, there is definite room for metaphor: after all ‘Hair’ is merely “surrealist extentionism” (get it, extensions… hair? Oh, that Gaga!)

Ultimately, it is Gaga’s creativity that detracts from the album. Due to a lack of self-reflection, no soft ballad, it appears that despite so many of the lyrical nuances pointing to an album of ordinary pop, the generic has been overlooked. Sometimes, the mainstream just wants a neat slice of pop music: after all that’s why it is called mainstream. No doubt a balance difficult to obtain, Lady Gaga has captured her flare, but failed to capitalise and exploit the pop genre as fully as one may have anticipated.    

Greatest album of the decade then? Simply, no. There is a great deal to praise about Born This Way, and it is most definitely one of the most exciting listens of the year due to its relentless energy and topical approach to music. Indeed, it is an album that should be heard in its entirety (and by entirety, the expanded edition is implied). Unfortunately in its attempts to achieve pure pop status, it overreaches itself. Perhaps this is not how it would be received on G.O.A.T. and maybe in that alien territory of boundless freedom, such an album would be the mother monster of LPs: for it evokes and oozes an ethos of freedom for each and every person throughout. However, in spite of Born This Way’s flaws, Gaga is certainly on the right track and the offering sees her quite literally on the edge of (musical) glory.

Checkmate becomes Stalemate

Previously, government politics has been assumed the same level as a game: not one of particular strategy, but a game of chance and foul-play against other party leaders. It would appear that following last Thursday’s election results, such an analogy holds firm and true. In a somewhat unprecedented move, Nick Clegg has spoken out against the Health Reform to the NHS that has been proposed by officials and had had backing of the Deputy Prime Minister until this week. The timing is rather too convenient to be attributed to coincidence. A stung Clegg is taking a stand in a bid to remind the Conservative coalition that its power is dependent, no matter how slight, on his backing. To play on the game analogy, stalemate.

When interviewed over the weekend, all questions towards the Lib Dem party pivoted on the huge losses signified by the local elections. Many people are now aware that the political group had its support essentially wiped out in Scotland and there were heavy losses across the majority of the country. Of course, the main hit was the rejection of the AV referendum: a change that Clegg had been championing for some time now.

Consequently, whilst gains were made by Labour in the North and the Conservatives held the swing of the previous national election, the Lib Dems have been considerably damaged. It should come as no surprise: in order to hang on to the coattails of power, they have formed a coalition that little reflects the promises of 2010 and so just as the party started to regain its previous prominence, faith in change has been wiped.

“Overall they got their lowest share of votes in three decades” claimed ‘The Guardian’ statistics. It has been almost a century since the predecessor of the current party held sway: the rise of Labour saw a much more approachable and thorough mode of socialism, that was not so centre ground. Being ‘stuck in the middle’ of the emergent political climate of the Conservatives and Labour made playing games quite a necessary move. For all the two large parties of the twentieth century would attack each other, the Liberals and subsequent Lib Dems would present themselves as the alternative, the balance, the measured view and pointed to any form of extremity to gain favourable opinion. Indeed it is probable that if AV had been in force for the last election, Liberal Democrats would now be in power.

However, in order to hold a prominent position, the Lib-Dems have taken U-Turns on a number of their pledges just twelve months ago. This is only to be expected: playing game earns reputation and power. Therefore, Clegg calculated stronger gains as a consequence. Unfortunately, the number of accessions granted to the Conservatives has seen negative growth of support.

Clegg’s claim to prevent the passing of the NHS Bill then may in part be founded on principle and there can be no doubt that there were some issues he had wanted to be addressed. What goes against such an argument in solid fact is that the Deputy PM has already signed the White Paper agreeing to the reform and the majority of his party had backed him. The BBC’s Deputy Political Editor, James Landale, suggests that “underlying it all is an identity crisis that these elections have forced on the Lib Dems”. That is to say that now the party has figures noting their overwhelming loss, they have to address the stem of the issue and return to Liberal politics. 

Calculated or adolescent the move may be, but Clegg pledges to now stay true to his claim. It certainly appears a rash and rather selfish move: since you’re making gains in one area, I am going to demonstrate how much power I have. Stalemate.

In this regard, whilst the Lib-Dem leader says that “where we achieve Liberal Democrat policies in government, we've got to tell people about it,” this quote should in itself not be taken as a sign of a stand, but more an awareness that the Liberal-Democrats have lost touch with their electorate and are now going to take advantage of all mediums possible in order to solidify and restart. The idea is that the people are key and so we shall highlight success and minimise failure. Once more, the constituency are treated without respect of knowledge that they deserve.

Whilst a Labour motion to prevent the bill continuing was today revoked (09/05/11), the movement highlighted the growing divide in the coalition government. If a general election was to be held and another coalition formed, the Lib Dems would again have scope to seek out a new route of choice. But rising unpopularity ensures that this government need remain in power until there has been a stopper put to the flailing support of party members and supporters alike. Declaration of vote timing is much more crucial and a matter of winning the public than previously, for it can enable a frame picture against other parties that solidifies position. Reforms that go wrong could ruin reputations.

“We've got to show people where we are a moderating voice on the Conservatives. We need to stand up for our values and say that loud and clear.”  A very noble sentiment indeed, but since it has taken twelve months for this idea to take a hold of the coalition minority party, political sway has again become a case of playing on the power and reputation that one can sacrifice in order to hopefully see gain in support. It may be said that the value of any political party is determined by how far it is able to undermine the others. Only when this is achieved in majority can there be an end to stalemate. Checkmate.

Fairer Votes? Just Give Us A Fairer Government!

Elections on the 5^th May have generated a great deal of interest as they rightly should. Last year’s national election saw a hung parliament and  a consequent coalition has emerged: that twelve months later it has a united front is evidence of the dedication and commitment each party has made to compensate, compromise and collaborate with each other. Coalitions are indeed often considered weak and ineffective, but this government has so far tackled huge issues (which undoubtedly leave a lot of room for problems and grumbling) concerning education costs and public sector reforms. 

Now the promise of a referendum is delivered. Never in recent centuries has there been such a crucial opportunity to change our system of enfranchisement. As ever, every voter counts. Not only do recent polls demonstrate that opinion is spilt, swinging back and forth on the issues, but with fewer people actively interested in politics at large, this event has created an air of suspense between many. 

65.1% turned out in the elections of 2010 and this was considered a great achievement considering the previous election had only received 61.4% and prior to that 59.4%. However, we should consider that only as far back as 1997, there was a 71.4% turnout – and that was the lowest recorded figure in the post-World War Two era. No doubts can be held that there has been a significant drop in the number of voters – and yet there is greater concern about the way in which our government passes law. In this case, the first method by which to attain a fairer government appears fundamental: vote. With more than a third of the nation not helping to gage true feeling and beliefs, there is not the room for government to be considerate.

Yet, we may question the reasons behind the sudden drop. In a politically correct era, politics has become increasingly filled with jargon and specialist lexicon that prevent access and appreciation for the system. Moreover, with greater media outlets than ever before, parties have simply not campaigned as widely as they possibly could. People’s interests lie in so many different areas today that a government, especially one riddled with cynicism from any onlooker, needs to adapt to circumstance and target groups all through the term – not just at election time. There need be change effected for good, not for votes. Therefore, government need be more clear and defined and pro-active; so make them work for this.

Of course, the previous ideas of making politicians work all throughout their time in parliament sounds quite novel to many sceptics. However, the image serves to highlight how far politics has become a game. We only become actively involved as a society when elections are taking place. Whereas in decades gone by, social reforms, political movements and technological advances ensured politicians were seen every day to make comment and move people to belief, today politicians appear more competitive for votes each April alone and do not add much to their public sphere over the intervening year.

Some of this point scoring politics can be seen quite clearly in the current AV campaigns. For example the ‘No to AV’ programme points out costs that appear quite negligible in the long-term. It suggests millions will be spent on AV in explaining how it works – this should be common knowledge for us to make an informed decision BEFORE voting, not after it could become implemented policy. Also, discrediting the scheme through costs on new machines is hardly an acceptable argument – such machines would be useful under EITHER system of politics. However, more than these, the suggestion that there is excessive cost at having this referendum is rather insulting: democracy should be upheld at all costs; voices should not be ignored because of the ‘price’ of political freedom.

This is not to say that the ‘Yes’ voters have fared much better in their attempts at an independent campaign. It suggests that the AV system provides a bigger say in who comes first and last, and yet this phrase does not reflect the complexity of the vote count. In introducing this vote, there was a pledge it would help tackle what is commonly referred to as ‘seats for life’, but it will leave more than 200 seats unchanged. And surely the every vote counts argument is not unique to AV?

Increasingly, there appears cause for despair. Whilst politicians tackle each other with out of context quotes and front page jibes, the general public are left more unaware of the political ties. Although we have an impression of which party prefers whatever course of action relevant to a particular issue, there is little concrete argument as to why this conclusion has been reached: for both sides refer again and again to similar points.

In short, government is in need of reform and it is only achievable through the collaborative voices of the electorate ourselves. In seeking change, we seek politics to affect our daily lives for the better, for politics in action. No longer should these leaders of nations mock each other’s aims and sit passively by for a large proportion of the year. If only we exercise our own liberties, we could achieve such a more functioning government in many ways. No fully functioning government is given to us on a plate.

For more detailed insights to the flaws of the AV campaign, visit: http://thedolphinsblowhole.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/the-straw-man-referendum-how-the-av-debate-misses-the-point/

The Qualities Of A Flawed Leader

In the wake of the death of Osama bin-Laden, it seems appropriate to take a few minutes to consider that whilst the Western world may celebrate at this man’s passing, there are countless peoples in the Eastern world who may have viewed him differently. Whilst this may be difficult for many to accept and raises huge questions of ethical beliefs, we should consider that the most notorious of all leaders were charismatic to their own people at the time. Surely then, bin-Laden had some qualities.

Let me first state that I am not writing to posthumously exonerate bin-Laden, to justify his actions, or for this to be taken as any kind of support. The countless lives and suffering inflicted both directly and indirectly cannot and should not be denied by anyone. However, without dwelling too long on this image that is so popular, it is worth noting that indeed this is ‘the popular image’. Are we ignorant of any other ideas or (somewhat questionably) ideals?

"I can be eliminated, but not my mission." said bin-Laden in an interview with a Pakistani journalist shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. If this is to be taken at face value, it would suggest an aim and motive, a course of action and a reasoning in which all these ideas were founded. For his mission to survive his own lifetime, it would have to be one that was supported by a number of people and connected with their strife. No doubt, bin-laden has already established a legacy for himself: or rather he has established two legacies. In the West, his organisation of attacks spanning several decades is looked upon with disdain. Yet he united a great many people in an apparent struggle to rid the Middle East of the occupying forces that terrorised those lands. 

Osama bin-Laden evidently had leadership qualities then. He was able to control masses and ensnare a certain sense of urgency, of panic, of need to react, to revolt, to protest. Furthermore, he attended Universities, with rumours of various degree paths. In this, his main interest was always religion. Spirituality and an influential family combine to form the image of a man who should be of justified opinion. As startling as it may seem, several have described the man as polite in speech and rather mild mannered. Such attributes are somewhat at odds with what would be expected, but they nonetheless demonstrate reason behind his success. He was a relatable figure across all fronts. He was educated, he could boast richness amongst the upper classes, whilst appear to be pious amongst the lower-classes (reports suggest he lived a moderate lifestyle even before his move to the mountains).

Often overlooked is bin-Laden’s work alongside the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of his projects were funded by the Americans and his early campaigns against Soviet occupation were viewed with praise. Indeed, upon his return to Afghanistan, he became a popular figure and was an in demand speaker for mosques across the country. It becomes apparent that his combined efforts to lead a life devoted to the betterment of his people were at the forefront of his aims. These are celebrated goals worldwide. However as his opinions began to diverge from those of the West, suspicions were soon roused. Consider his argument that "When we buy American goods, we are accomplices in the murder of Palestinians". Obviously, it may be considered extremist, but also fundamentalist. Support of a force that opposed the country’s aims was obviously contrary to the nation’s growth. 

In his own way, Osama bin-Laden outlined his wish for an equality amongst nations. He could not continue to follow allegiances with those countries that prevented the forward movement of his own. We should recognise that this is the fundamental aim of any developing nation: having to compete with more advanced states only leaves room for total attention to further evolving the country. 

Unfortunately, the passions of a man who had been so promising a figure of democracy and understanding soon came to cloud any justification of action. Whilst using a religious guise, the atrocities suffered under this banner of jihad only led to mistrust of these countries, further invasions and stereotyping of Islam. Not only is it disconcerting to twist religious doctrine in this fashion (although we may point to the Crusades as a similar point in case), but any advances made between Eastern and Western domains have been undermined by the reckless search for ‘equality and justice’.

Defining a terrorist still leaves a great deal to be implied and even vaguer attributes are left unaddressed. If we consider bin-Laden a terrorist, it is because he has been at the forefront of campaigns that have seen countless horrors. Then should we not reach an independent view that his success was in part due to forces that appeared to fill the same description of terrorist to some of the citizens in the Middle East. In this sense, neither side aided the other. Therefore with growing confusion, the need for some form of insurgency would have been deemed necessary. Culpability becomes a worldwide factor: in not reaching a unilateral code of conduct and peace laws, antagonism is only met with antagonism.

Whilst Osama bin-Laden may be deemed a man of many faults then, we should acknowledge him as someone who did terrible things, but was a leader through various appealing means. He had served his country, become educated, led a life that many testified was in keeping with tradition for the most part and was tactful in his announcements. In one final depiction of how his skills are best demonstrated, consider his reasoning for attacks upon America and think how closely it appears to parallel all other declarations of a justified war from the West:

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden, 2004