Hey! I actually really like it! Though not as much as The Quietus does.
Oh, we're doing Xmas music now, are we? :-)
I give you a mediaeval carol, in Latin, sung by Erasure:
I was going to say that the following track was about as un-punk as you could get: Nils Frahm, a classically-trained Berlin pianist with electric piano and synth arpeggios.
But then look at the way he fucks with the innards of that tape echo, and feel the way that he rides the very edge of control. It's kind of ambient, but it would give you very strange dreams indeed.
Having only just been introduced to Frahm's work, he's very hard to pin down. A bit of classical, quite a bit of minimalist, the odd Berlin-school bass riff chugging away, often ambient, the occasional hint of jazz, but with chord changes that are pure heart-tugging pop. But the reason your post made me think of him was the phrase "people can play now". Jesus, this guy can play! I love the piece above, but if we could embed Vimeo here, I would have embedded this piece. Once he stops playing his piano with toilet brushes (from about 1:50), it goes very Reich/Riley, but with the sort of structures and lush harmonic dynamism that purist minimalists would eschew. Even knowing that delays and loops are part of the sound, his two-piano attack is a jawdropping piece of musicianship.
more than a quarter of New Zealanders look at "sites with sexual content" at least occasionally
Or perhaps more accurately, "admit to looking at".
why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it
A) Yes, people bloody well are talking about the rape. But here, this is a discussion about "free speech" and "boycotts", so the discussion on this post will concentrate on that.
B) "crap at handling a discussion" is so much of an understatement that it sounds like a deliberate missing of the actual point. This wasn't just a botched interview, it was bullying. And their relentless attempts to discredit, belittle and humiliate a friend of victims, and the victims themselves, can only be seen as an attempt to justify and/or deny the rapes.
Well, wouldn't it suck if the majority decided that your speech was dangerous, and shouldn't be allowed?
Do you recognise any difference between "allowed" and "given a prominent and privileged platform"?
Ok I think this might have gotten to me a little.
Shh, calm down, Bart. Then we can get back to the important topics, like what Rob Ford thinks of Bunnings.
I'm expressing my concern about all forms of speech designed to silence others.
I wasn't aware that JT and Willie had had their vocal cords removed, or denied the same access to social media or blog comments that we all enjoy. I thought that this was about a radio station dropping some people who had abused the privilege that comes from a position of media power while bullying a young woman, because a public campaign made it clear to their advertisers that such behaviour was not what they wanted to hear.
But of course, that doesn't fit into an abstract academic discourse about "all forms of speech" that treats all speech acts as equal.
I believe the term is "rape apologists".
If your first response to a young woman talking about her friends being raped is not empathy but "Wow, what a load of sluts you are", then yeah. Both terms would apply.
I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
That's actually astonishing, even for a shock jock station. I'm sure they've been told "Here's the dump button, for when a caller gets too boring." Would they not even have any training in how to safely deal with, say, a suicidal caller?