Wednesday, May 7, 2025
Blog Page 1765

Letters from me to Gareth: Los Campesinos! interview

0

It is difficult to start writing about Los Campesinos! without falling into the same traps of lazy journalism or hipster elitism that have ensnared the band’s reputation for the last five years. Whether describing them as twee-popping indie kids, or miserablist emos (inaccurately in either case), there has always been something of a sense, amongst your more worthy musoes, that here is a band that, in all seriousness, you shouldn’t really admit to liking. In the playground of Pitchfork Elementary, Los Campesinos! is for girls. To accept any such bullshit, however, would be to ignore a band that, since 2008’s Hold on Now, Youngster, have produced four outstanding albums, with a consistent quality that has masked a manifestly developing style. Gone are the glockenspiels, boy-girl duets and cartoon record sleeves; in their place Hello Sadness.

‘You do not like us ‘cos your girlfriend likely does,’ taunts singer Gareth Campesinos! on the second track of the album, and you can’t help but feel he has in mind some of the lasting perceptions of the band that, by this stage, he is clearly tiring of. ‘We brought it upon ourselves at first,’ he tells me, ‘just getting excited and carried away at being in a band, the fact that people were labelling us as anything was exciting. But now the twee thing doesn’t amount to much more than laziness from people who don’t know what twee is.’ In truth though, it was never an epithet that was really fitting. Los Campesinos! have always been ‘far too ballsy and aggressive, and sort of far too… honest’, to be thought of as just another cardigan at the vintage fair of pop music. Perhaps an even less predictable misconception about the band stems from their origins as students at Cardiff University, although admittedly it’s a less toxic fiction: ‘If it wasn’t for sport,’ says Gareth, ‘I probably wouldn’t care that we were described as being Welsh.’

Sport, and specifically football, has been a constant reference point across all of Los Campesinos!’ records, to the bafflement of some of their more indie-traditionalist fans. ‘I think there’s still sort of a disagreement between people who like alternative, real music, and people who like such a popular, masculine sport as football,’ observes Gareth, although clearly it’s no opposition in his mind. For a while the interview devolves into a discussion of nineties football management games and the new faces of Umbro’s England football shirt campaign (‘I don’t anticipate us getting asked to advertise anything like that, although I’m sure my football knowledge is far greater than Kasabian’s.’)  Gareth, it transpires, is a lifelong fan of Welton Rovers (currently plying their trade in Western Football League Division One), having had a season ticket ‘since I was old enough that my mum would let me go out when it was cold.’ And this, I think, regardless of what PE-dodging indie types might tell you (too scared to muddy their Belle & Sebastian t-shirts), is important.

Because supporting a football team, really supporting a football team, is just as unreasonable and passionate a romance as any true love. The rituals of intense devotion, wounded pride and habitual humiliation familiar to any lower-league football fan can surely only inform Gareth’s unique perspective on love and heartbreak on Hello Sadness: ‘It’s only hope that springs eternal’, begins the chorus of the title track, ‘and that’s the reason why/This dripping from my broken heart/Is never running dry’, while ‘Every Defeat a Divorce’, tellingly subtitled ‘Three Lions’, expresses an enduring faith, never disillusioned by failure, as appropriate to the football fan as it is to the hopeless romantic: ‘Every defeat a divorce/Although I look surprised/It’s par for the course I guess.’

Sport and pop music share a peculiar ability to inspire and nurture a uniquely obsessive dedication, and it is perhaps again to some extent the formative years on the terraces that have produced such a reciprocal relationship between Los Campesinos! and their disciples. Strengthened recently through self-published fanzine, Heat Rash, available to subscribing devotees, the close connection between band and public is something that has always been apparent at their live shows. ‘I just don’t understand why every band wouldn’t be like that,’ says Gareth, ‘the hierarchy of fans being underneath and feeding into the band isn’t something that sits comfortably with us. And chances are there’s a lot of people who watch our shows that we’d be mates with in real life.’ Although he is careful to qualify this (‘You do meet a lot of people who are just dickheads and really irritating.’) he maintains that, ‘by and large, it’s an absolute pleasure meeting all these people.’

There is a team ethic to Los Campesinos! as impressive as anything in the Premier League (last one…). Gareth rarely uses the first-person singular, seemingly naturally to prefer a more democratic ‘We’. Despite the band’s shifting line-up over the past couple of years, it seems he feels like he has now picked his first team (okay…): ‘We’re the happiest now we’ve ever been, the most focused and the most united, and the most capable of actually creating something lasting’; there is a desire to be more than ‘just another band with a few albums lined up in HMV.’ Clearly evident is a real sense of confidence, but one refreshingly short of ego, as he begins to conclude, ‘I think we’re capable of being something slightly,’ pausing bashfully, as if to make sure, ‘ever so slightly, special.’

This confidence in the band’s own ability and significance, if expressed shyly over the phone, is worn firmly on the sleeve of Hello Sadness. With Los Campesinos!, emotions have never been too deeply beneath the surface: ‘I’ve got into a situation where I want to write a lot more honestly, and perhaps only feel that honestly is the only way I’m capable of writing,’ admits Gareth. From the start, his song writing has been open and confessional, his delivery earnest and sincere. What saves it from pretension or self-indulgence – and in my opinion what separates the Morrisseys and Bowies of this world from the Bonos and Stings (apart from the not having fucking stupid names) – is the ability to be really funny, even (especially) when singing sad songs. The effect, on Hello Sadness, is one of real catharsis; emerging from the despondently triumphant closing track with the same lift that follows a night spent crying your heart out.

In the press surrounding the album, there is a great deal of talk about growing up. ‘When we formed we were in our second year of university,’ Gareth explains, ‘We weren’t real people yet. I suppose we’ve done all the proper adult growing up whilst being in the band.’ And the whole process has been captured on record, both in terms of the musical development, ‘five years of learning to write songs released on albums’, and psychologically, through the camera obscura of Gareth’s candid song writing. Hello Sadness takes as its emotional backdrop the end of a relationship. Two weeks before recording, Gareth split up with his girlfriend. ‘I guess it was both terrible and perfect timing,’ he tells me. ‘It was a weird headspace to have going into writing an album, but also it was a brilliant time to be going away with my mates to Spain to record and to drink and dick about.’

‘I’d written 2 or 3 songs very much form the point of view of being happy and in a relationship and then as soon as that ended it didn’t feel appropriate anymore and wasn’t the sort of thing I was wanting to put down onto a record. So I scrapped it and started again. I didn’t really start writing until we found ourselves in the studio.’ There is a bare authenticity to the lyrics of songs like ‘Baby I Got The Death Rattle’ and ‘Light Leaves, Dark Sees, part II’, a vulnerability bitterly picked from the fresh scabs of a relationship: ‘The pain of the silence before bed/Oh for the sound of your pissing through the thin walls or stroking your head.’ The break-up, says Gareth, meant that ‘everything written before then became void.’

‘I think it feels equally the same band and completely different,’ he admits, and Hello Sadness is saturated with dampened echoes of a past still audible, yet somehow beyond reach: the scratching guitars that open ‘Songs About Your Girlfriend’, like those of an early EP, now surrounded by the unsettling hiss of distant radio noise; the opening chords of ‘To Tundra’ like ghostly reverberations of those on breakthrough single ‘You! Me! Dancing!’, only now, instead of building to raucous primary-coloured abandon, levelling out into minor-key phantasmagoria, all twinkling keys and atmosphere, as desolate as the permafrost evoked in the title. While the themes remain the same – love, loss, heartbreak – this is no longer teenage anguish, yet while recoiling as strongly as ever against the lethargy of ‘maturity’, it is certainly a more grown up kind of despair. 

Review: OUO Michaelmas Concert

0
The concert saw Oxford University Orchestra out in force, with a huge orchestra that raised the roof with the epic Mahler’s 5th, and the curious appendage of Stravinsky’s Symphonies of Wind Instruments.
With the opportunity to conduct Mahler’s 5th symphony, it was up to Geoffrey Paterson to wring every ounce of emotion from this beautiful and substantial work, a task in which he no doubt succeeded. For me however, there were times when it felt as though too much was being forced from every nuance in the music, which became emotionally exhausting and removed some of the effect of those ‘big moments’ that the composer had designated. By the same token, though, conducting Mahler, like singing Wagner, is a chance to indulge in some of the most expansive and emotionally rich music in the repertoire and if there is ever a time to over-indulge, then Mahler is a more forgiving composer than most. Personally, though, there was no doubt that the highlight of the concert was the Adagietto, which, despite some tuning issues, featured a higher level of subtlety and really allowed the orchestra to engage more naturally with the music.
 
The sheer volume of the symphony was impressive in itself, with seemingly every inch of floorspace being occupied by a performer. This translated to some brilliant, thrilling explosions, particularly after the introductory fanfare and, of course, in the finale. However, given the high level of proficiency that we have come to expect from OUO in the past, there were one or two unfortunate slip-ups from soloists, particularly from the brass, that detracted from the overall effect. By contrast, the woodwind section were consistently outstanding, with gorgeous solos from Julian Scott and Claire Wickes who put just the right amount of zest into some of the symphony’s more intimate moments.
 
Stravinsky’s Symphonies of Wind Instruments was, in my opinion, an unconventional choice to accompany Mahler’s 5th in the programme, although I suspect that time constraints were the primary reason for the inclusion of this heavily contrasting work. Here, Paterson’s highly expressive approach was less appropriate. The metric regularity that can make this piece of ‘cubist’ music so exciting and unusual was subject to lagging from a slow starting tempo, and the ensemble really did not feel together at times. That said, the sheer audacity of performing the work – and with it, the chance to hear the interlocking textures and shifting strata of twentieth-century harmony – warranted its place in the programme. Unfortunately, it felt both dwarfed and under-prepared in comparison with the Mahler symphony and didn’t offer a podium for the excellent woodwind section as it might have done.
 
Despite counterintuitive programming, the concert proved to be both thrilling and sensuous, though not without its flaws. To even attempt the virtuosic Mahler symphony and the Stravinsky demonstrates the excellent standard that OUO is operating at and to hear them both was a genuine pleasure, regardless of some decisions made by the conductor and concert programmer that, ultimately, come down to personal taste.

Police crackdown on cyclists

0

The police have begun a crackdown on cyclists cycling without lights.

162 people were handed ₤30 fixed penalty notices during the three-hour operation last Wednesday, 2nd November, at an average of just under one fine per minute.

Those caught circulating with only one working light were ordered to get off their bicycles and walk.

Haydon Croker, a second-year at St Hilda’s, was stopped outside the Queen’s College on the High Street for not making himself visible enough to other traffic.

“I was cycling back to college at about 8pm when a policeman pulled me over. He was really nice about whole deal”, he said.

A spokeswoman for Thames Valley Police told Cherwell that the fine will be waived if those caught prove that they have bought lights by presenting a receipt.

“It’s a good idea; it got me to buy lights”, said Croker of the opportunity to get his fine revoked.

He added, “The policeman who fined me said that the next thing they’ll be cracking down on is cyclists going through red lights.”

Thames Valley Police has highlighted the importance of cycle safety in Oxford, Road Safety Constable Mark Pilling saying, “What our figures show is that all casualties are down, except pedal cyclists where casualties have increased by 10 per cent.”

Attempts to make Oxford’s streets safer for cyclists come in the wake of the death of Joanna Braithwaite, who was killed when her bicycle crashed with a cement mixer on Woodstock Road at the end of October.


Brookes bids to extend licence

0

Residents in Headington are fighting a bid by Oxford Brookes to obtain an alcohol and entertainment licence for their Gipsy Lane campus.

The proposal, which has already been withdrawn once following an objection from a local city councillor, would permit the sale of alcohol every day until 11pm.

The University is also seeking permission to extend licensed activities, which include live music performances, until 2am on twelve occasions per year, and twice for the entire night.

Many residents are deeply opposed to the application, which they claim will disrupt life for people living near the campus. Margaret Conway, of Headington Hill, said, “It will be a party time district right beside major residential areas.”

There is further anger over the way in which Oxford Brookes has made the application. Joe McManners, the councillor for Churchill Ward who persuaded the university to resubmit the plans, said, “I was concerned that people had not been properly consulted.”

Conway’s husband, Ken Lovesy, agreed with the councillor, saying that the University was “trying to slip a blanket proposal under the radar” and that locals faced “a nightmare world of noise pollution and rowdy behaviour”.

Oxford Brookes, which has three main campuses, initially requested permission for activities to go on until 11.30pm every day, as well as the fourteen extended evenings. In a poll for the Oxford Mail, 69% of people objected to those hours.

The University has said that there are no plans to open a student bar on the site, or to use the licence for the purposes of raising income. In a letter to residents dated 30th September 2011, Amanda Ashworth-Plant, Oxford Brookes’ Head of Campus Operations, sought to reassure locals that “the site will remain a place of teaching and study without student accommodation”.

She did admit, however, that “there may be occasional events at which the University would like to be able to charge for the supply of drinks”, including “receptions, ceremonies and end of term events”.

Brookes students have mixed feelings about the dispute. James Buckland, a first year Film Studies student, pointed out that drinks events on university sites were often “far safer than going into town”. But he accepted that “loud, drunken messy teenagers” could be a nuisance for neighbours.

Another student at the university took a harsher approach, telling Cherwell, “the University is entitled to use its premises in any way it sees fit”. He pointed out that local people often made use of facilities provided by the university, and dismissed criticism of the plans as an “outcry from a vocal minority”.

Edward Reed, a spokesman for Brookes, defended the application as little more than an attempt to reduce paperwork. In a statement to Cherwell, he said, “Oxford Brookes is not changing the nature of the licensable activities taking place on its campuses. The premises licences, one for each site, are to cover events such as graduations, student plays and concerts including those when there are no alcohol sales taking place.”

Asked about whether the local community could benefit from events taking place on the campus, Reed gave the example of the ‘Open Lectures Series’, which recently featured Niall McNevin, a former Brookes student, now leading the legacy element of the Olympic Park for London 2012. The lectures are all open to the public, with “wine and nibbles” laid on.
                   
Oxford Brookes students have a history of tension with local residents, especially concerning behaviour late at night. In November 2008, members of the Oxford Brookes Rugby Club were banned from playing for the team after an alcohol-related disturbance at the Hobgoblin pub, on Cowley Road. In April last year the university launched a campaign to educate students about the health risks of excessive alcohol consumption.

However, Matthew Tallant, a first year student at Brookes, denied that a particularly bad drinking culture existed at the university, saying it was “fairly usual, with the majority simply falling into the social drinking category”. In his experience, he said, “when drinking, the mood is always friendly and not forced upon people”.


Preview: Antony and Cleopatra

0

The problem with Shakespeare’s Roman plays is that since every director wants to put their own stamp on a production, wants to say something new and different, often the very specifically Roman history and politics of these plays ends up being transferred to another time. Unfortunately, this was the trap that I felt this production fell in to. I know it’s all very boring and purist to do it all historical, but there is a reason that a lot of productions keep the Roman plays Roman and that is because this is what makes the most sense.

In Burton’s production, Egypt becomes the Germany of the Weimar republic, all in black and white, with Rome – its generals bedecked rather jauntily with sparkly plastic jewel-encrusted military jackets – as a Technicolor America. I will be honest, though, I only got this once the director had explained it to me, so I found it a little distracting trying to work out which country Egypt was meant to represent and which country Rome was. It looks wonderful, and the production is full of stylish visual touches, but it just didn’t make sense to me that even the Romans who throughout the play talk in the language of measurement and control, the Egyptians are the ones associated with the fascists. Of course, Rome has to be America, because in the modern history this is mapped on to, America wins the war, but it doesn’t fit quite right with the events of the original setting.

That is not to say that I did not like this production. I liked it very much and there were lots of wonderful touches that made it very lively and funny. Enobarbus’ iconic speech ‘The barge she sat in like a burnished throne…’ etc. was played as a voiceover on a black and white film showing Cleopatra and Anthony frolicking around that was really very effective, and in fact the entire Egyptian court were wonderful and the production is entirely worth seeing for Catherine Haines’ Cleopatra who perfectly accomplishes combining Cleopatra’s infinite variety and her capricious game-playing with her power and presence. The Egyptians all lie around on the floor stroking one another, while the Romans sit apart on hard chairs talking stiffly. The contrast is beautifully made, but then again this transposition in time caused me problems. Why would the decadent Egypt be aligned with a black-and-white bleak fascist state?

But then, this does open up other possibilities that keeping it within the correct (sorry, that’s just the way it is) historical setting would shut down. By transposing it through time, Burton has shifted the power relationship between Anthony and Caesar. Instead of hard-edged, calm and in control, Rob Snellgrove’s Caesar is nervous, almost squirrelly, totally intimidated by the suave and manipulative Anthony. It’s very interesting and it’s very different. The only problem is, since the text is (quite rightly) left exactly how it is with all the names and the historical references so we know that Caesar is the man who will eventually become Augustus ruler of the known world. It was interesting and it was powerful, but I just couldn’t buy into this portrayal of Octavian, I just couldn’t believe in this Caesar as the man who would eventually rule the world. Perhaps he was modelled on some real historical character, and perhaps it is because of my ignorance that I am missing the nuance, but for me, it didn’t quite sit right.

But, having said all of this, this is definitely a production worth seeing. So, I didn’t agree with the way it was done, and I didn’t really get the change in historical setting, but at least it was something a bit different, a bit provocative. I could have gone to another production with them all wearing togas, and I would probably have liked it more, but then I wouldn’t have had any kind of reaction to it like this. Much better to see a production that makes you think, even if it makes you disagree. This is an Anthony and Cleopatra that is something that is a bit different, and all of the acting in it is excellent. It’s well worth seeing; the cast are really great and it’s well-paced and full of engaging extras with the film clips and some music. Who knows, maybe you’ll get it and it is my shocking lack of historical knowledge that stopped me loving this production, but at least this one gives one something to really get into and discuss, and hey – you don’t all have to read about how lovely and authentic I thought those who did the costumes had made the togas. 

3 STARS


Shooting statues

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4283%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4284%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4285%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4286%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4287%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4288%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%4289%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%42890%%[/mm-hide-text]

No time to be complacent

0

As students of the university ranked first this year in the Times Good Universities Guide, there can be no doubt that we as a community are proud not only of ourselves, but of the reputation of the British academic sector in general. We possess a world-class education system, cutting-edge research institutions, and a profligacy of experts in their fields. Yet this is not a given, it is a changeable – and we cannot sit back and value our education in idleness. When it is under threat, it should be defended, and the consensus is growing that higher education (and no, Oxbridge will not be insulated) is set to undergo a profound change for the worse if we do not stand against it now.

 

It is unlikely that too many Cherwell readers will have trawled the Government’s Higher Education White Paper. Even for those of a mind to, the language is deliberately evasive, jargonistic, and seemingly intentionally incomprehensible. The rhetoric and small print hides a monster. Funding cuts are the most obvious part of it. One in five universities stand in deficit, according to the BBC, and many more have surpluses of under 3%. Business Secretary Vince Cable admits himself that many such institutions could be filing for bankruptcy after a swarm of cuts enter in. 

Privatisation is also at stake, which will inevitably place the market before the student. We are seeing this occurring in secondary education, where firms that claim to offer ‘the McDonald’s model of education’, and firms that have sold off the libraries in their schools to pay for risky investments are being allowed to run British schools. According to ‘Education Investor’, universities are already in contact with private equity firms. What do the private sector get from funding higher education? Undoubtedly commercial work – could we see students or professors shoved into market research instead of their degree? 

The Conservative Party claim to be on a crusade against state control, yet this could not be further from the truth – the White Paper is a slew of state-backed crony capitalism. Simon Head points out in the New York Review of Books that “From this bureaucratic acorn a proliferating structure of state control has sprung, extending its reach from the purely financial to include teaching and research… From the late 1980s onward the system has been fostered by both Conservative and Labour governments, reflecting a consensus among the political parties that, to provide value for the taxpayer, the academy must deliver its research “output” with a speed and reliability resembling that of the corporate world.” Hundreds of academics have put their names to an open letter to the government imploring them to reconsider their plan, and calling for a ‘winter of discontent’.

‘Student choice’ has been a catchphrase bandied about by the White Paper’s architects. Logic says otherwise. So does the Higher Education Policy Institute. It claims the sector will be split into a small elite that top-rate £9,000 fees and garners top students at the expense of social mobility, and a ‘lower class’ that charges average fees of below £7.5k (after waivers and not always willingly).


The analysis goes onto warn of less new higher education provision than is forecast, limiting student choice, high future costs to the taxpayer, a scholarships ‘arms race’ that will hit the poorest hardest and universities struggling ‘simply because they misjudge how to ‘play’ the new game’. Already, some 180,000 prospective students were initially left with no university place this year. 

Another pillar of ‘fairness’ on which the coalition case rests is the idea that students ‘should’ fund their own education. Again, this fails to demonstrate a basic grasp of fact; graduates repay society amply, with a higher than average contribution through tax of around £56,000 over the course of their life – surely an investment worth making and encouraging. The Leitch Report in 2006 highlighted the labour market’s changing nature in that unskilled vocations are rapidly becoming extinct.

Despite being internationally renowned for our higher education institutions, the British state seem to display an endemic disregard for it. Other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries display a markedly more progressive attitude. The rhetoric runs that student numbers are becoming unsustainable; we rank below Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic for university participation. The UK spends around 1.3% of GDP on higher education; the OECD average is 1.4%. Surprisingly, in the United States, often the victim of jibes about its education system, 3.1% of GDP is spent, and Yale fields outreach staff to attract talented students from poorer backgrounds in all fifty states. As it stands, UK universities generate 2.3% of GDP and employ 2.6% of the country’s workforce; cuts will engender massive job losses.

Despite this existing funding disconnect; university teaching budgets are taking 40% reductions. It does not take a university graduate to see that we will regress economically in comparison with other nations if we cannot compete in terms of university funding. The plans will also fundamentally change the nature of our education system, into something darker and more ruthless.

What basically amounts to privatisation of universities will no doubt impact heavily on smaller and less prestigious universities, who will lose ‘customers’ and lose funding, perhaps being forced to close. These are the institutions to which a greater proportion of the rise in student numbers can be attributed. In turn, this will proceed to lock poorer students who tend to populate such institutions out of the education ‘market.’

A market consists of buyers and sellers, winners and losers, and is a system as fragile and volatile as it may be dynamic – a cauldron of possibility too dangerous to entrust the future of our youth to. This is not the only disservice to poorer students. Peter Lampl of the Sutton Trust asserts rightly that the poor will be discouraged from participation.

The rationale is borne out by the fallout from the top-up fees rise in 2006 – poorer students had no particular disadvantage, and so their application numbers remained unwavering. Participation among those who were hit with rises that are small in comparison to those proposed by the coalition dropped by 3.2% – and this is among the more privileged classes that are in a far better position to repay their debts.

There has been, thus far, an overwhelming focus on economic and social cost. Cultural cost has barely been considered, and just because it cannot be mapped and measured on a performance graph does not mean that it in fact may outweigh any economic impositions. The first sacrificial lambs to the government axe are those courses deemed not ‘valuable’ to society by dry fiscal analysis; the humanities, the arts, those aspects of the sciences that cannot directly contribute to GDP.

This amounts to intellectual impoverishment, a massacre of ideas. Humanities subjects today are being taught in an increasingly more scientific way in a bid to produce ever more market potential, to squeeze more ‘capital’ from the human mind, at the expense of the creativity and imagination that underpins human civilization. Education for education’s sake is the last thing on the minds of the ministers.

Is this about saving money? Not particularly – if we remember, tuition fees cost the state infinitely more in the short term than they saved. In the long term, debt could increase as students default or write off loan repayments, and tax revenues from those who reject higher education as too expensive are lost.

 

“Public investments in education, particularly at the tertiary level, are rational even in the face of running a deficit in public finances. Issuing government bonds to finance these investments will yield significant returns and improve public finances in the longer term”, assert the OECD.  The numbers continue not to add up – a simple look at government ‘statistics’ proves disingenuous, or just shoddy, accounting.

The magnitude of the situation before us should surpass ideological and political boundaries. Oxford students and academics have already rejected the white paper, and many stood against the rise in tuition fees last winter. Continuing the resistance is paramount; Coalition higher education policy is desultory, ill-considered and will have a deeply damaging effect on education as a whole. We must act to save the higher education system we value so dearly, before it is too late.


Review: Radcliffe Residency

0

The association of the Oxford University Faculty of Music with the Radcliffe Trust resulted in the recent formation of the Radcliffe Residency. This post will entail the close association of a string quartet with the faculty, the chosen ensemble working closely with both student composers and performers over the next two years. For the selection, each quartet performed a 30-minute programme, which was followed with a practical demonstration of their abilities by coaching student chamber groups in the first movement of Mendelssohn’s Piano Trio in D minor.

All four quartets performed repertoire ranging from classical to contemporary, thus illustrating their adaptability and suitability to work with student composers. Given that all quartets are renowned upon the British chamber music scene, the assured performances were to be expected. The prominence of cello within the Finzi quartet suited an explosive and rich rendition of two movements from Ravel’s quartet. Their suitability to contemporary works was exemplified with their eerie and tense Adès, with the group’s gradual intensification particularly effective.

A personal highlight of the concert was undoubtedly the Piatti quartet’s dynamic and engaging performances, with equally convincing interpretations of works including Smetana, Haydn and the contemporary Armenian composer, Artur Akshelyan. The strong bond between the group’s members was apparent not only when playing but also during the coaching section of the process, where each member contributed to a strong artistic vision to extend the student chamber ensemble’s work. The Benyounes Quartet brought a real presence to the second movement of Bartok’s String quartet number 2. Although the movement by Brahms sometimes lacked a degree of intensity, they brought a light and refined tone to their account of Haydn. The afternoon was concluded by the Cavaleri Quartet, with thoughtful realisations of Schnittke and Webern. Despite the drama brought to these works, it was their rich and thoughtful Haydn which particularly stood out. Yet it was in the coaching that the true suitability of the groups for the Residency became clear. A couple of the groups unfortunately neglected the pianist of the trio to focus on the violin and cello, but all the quartets made an audible impression upon the interpretations of their student ensemble.

The afternoon passed very quickly, such was the standard of the performers. Whichever quartet will be announced certainly holds exciting possibilities for the Faculty of Music throughout the two years of the Residency.

5 Minute Masterclass: Phil Selway

0

What is the creative process like behind your songs?

The creative process will always vary from song to song and in my 25 years with Radiohead, there have been many ways to crack the nut in that time. My role in Radiohead is to some extent, purely percussive, but we all continually review a song’s structure. But you also have to make the music exciting for yourself in order to produce vitality. That’s why we always try different approaches from record to record. You can see that in the about-turn from OK Computer to Kid A and again from In Rainbows to The King Of Limbs. With Radiohead, each record seems to be a reaction to the last one. Of course any creative relationship is going to have friction, but that’s the fuel to what you do. All of us in Radiohead come from a similar place musically but there’s certainly no party line. Somehow we always manage to find a way through seemingly insurmountable problems and we become a better band for it.

On my debut solo album, Familial, I worked most on what felt appropriate to the songs. These were a set of songs that grew out of me learning to sing and to write. It was a very hushed and private process for me. I wasn’t aiming to push any boundaries and instead I focused on keeping a sense of space, both through the instrumentation and the personal nature of the project. Within the record I constantly asked what kind of singing voice I had and then built up the instrumentation around that. In this sense it is a very naked, unadorned record and a true sense of where I’ve been coming from musically for the past decade. It’s been a steep learning curve for me and despite being a part of the song-making process ever since we started Radiohead, this really felt like starting over again.

 

How do you capture the particular sound-world you want in performance?

I think, for all of us in Radiohead, we’ve always learned to play our instruments in the context of a band as well as developing a very individual style. Within that we all have very catholic tastes and so like magpies, we borrow a bit from here and there. I never feel like I’ve mastered my influences but what I then do is integrate them into my own personal voice. That’s why Radiohead is unique – these very fine, distinctive voices all blending.

On Familial, I delegated drumming duties to one of my favourite musicians, Glenn Kotche. When I was writing my songs I couldn’t really hear drum parts. There’s a way that Glenn approached the material – finding all these lovely percussive textures in there – that allowed me to keep a sense of space in the songs without having to throw a strong backbeat in there that would mess with the atmosphere. Who I perform with is very important. With Glen, there was something there musically that just clicked. He has an incredibly distinctive, percussive voice and the whole range of dynamic in his playing.

The place of the performance also plays its part. In some ways, the shows that I’m playing at the Pegasus Theatre here in Oxford this week are a conclusion of what I’ve been working on with Familial. It feels appropriate to end that cycle in Oxford, as well as drawing attention to the work of the Pegasus Theatre, of which I’m a patron. All of the songs took root in the area so it’s nice to put them to bed here as well. It will be interesting to see where I go now. When you’ve been ploughing one furrow for eight years, you never get the complete picture.

 

How have you changed your approach to marketing a record?

Having been in music for a couple of decades, it often feels like we make it up as we go along. It’s definitely the best way for Radiohead. In a broader business sense we have tried different things. When we were at EMI we had a very skilled marketing department. But from our point of view we’ve always been learning more about how to get our music out to people. So with In Rainbows we used a pay-what-you-want digital approach. It was our attempt at finding something that would connect with people in a meaningful way. In Rainbows wasn’t a two fingers up at the corporate structure. It was just an exciting way at the time of releasing a record within the possibilities that digital tools allowed.

 

Radiohead’s drummer Phil Selway will play two intimate hometown gigs to raise funds for Oxford’s Pegasus Theatre on Thursday, November 10 and Friday, November 11, celebrating the theatre’s 50th anniversary. Tickets are £25 and doors open 7pm. www.pegasustheatre.org.uk