I never really got into the music of Deep Purple during their first stint at rock stardom. It was only after they broke up that I picked up on their music and that of the various bands that fragmented off from them. I bought a few albums from Rainbow and Whitesnake but it was Gillan that I was particularly taken with. As I replaced or augmented my vinyl collection with CDs I bought a "Best of" compilation of Rainbow. It's OK but I don't listen to it very much. I don't think they were really my sort of thing. However, I never bought any Whitesnake or Gillan on CD. That is, until last week when I spent another freebee Amazon voucher on them.
The first choice was Whitesnake's 30th Anniversary Collection, a triple CD set which pretty much covers all of David Coverdale's solo career. Essentially, Whitesnake consisted of a British Blues-Rock band and an American Hair-Rock outfit. Sandwiched in between that he recorded one album with John Sykes on guitar, the hugely successful 1987, which sounded very Heavy Metal; and a very good album with Jimmy Page which sounded remarkably like Led Zeppelin. Aside from the Sykes/Page albums I tend to prefer the British Blues-Rock material of their earlier albums. Not that the later Power Ballads are bad but they do come across as being rather over-produced.
I did have one Whitesnake album on vinyl, Ready an' Willing, as well as a cassette of 1987. If Ready an' Willing sounds like a sort of Spinal Tap Mickey take then I rather suspect that Whitesnake was the main aim of that joke. Their album titles also included Lovehunter, Come an' Get It, Slide It In and Slip of the Tongue. Yes, this was a band that had mastered the art of the single entendre. However, the material is generally very good and is not a million miles away from the likes of Free and Bad Company. Some of the tracks are surprisingly familiar considering I've never heard a great deal of their back catalogue, although it's difficult to determine if I'm missing anything essential. The only omission I can see is the Sykes version of Crying in the Rain, although the excellent original is there in all it's wrought agony - this was the song that Coverdale wrote about his marriage break-up.
The Gillan compilation is more familiar to me as I did have most of the Gillan albums. However, it also includes material from the Ian Gillan Band. This makes for a somewhat odd mix as the two groups had a radically different sound: Gillan being a modern sounding hard rock band whereas the Ian Gillan Band was more of a Jazz-fusion affair. Nevertheless, this is a decent compilation. Gillan were the first of the Purple spin-offs that I really picked up on. Mainly, this was because they were regular guests on Top of the Pops in the late 70s and early 80s. The hits they played on the show were often their covers of old Rock and Roll records such as New Orleans but the band looked brilliant. Gillan appeared as some sort of long haired Messiah - in fact he played Jesus in the original stage version of Jesus Christ Superstar. Next to him was bassist John McCoy, a huge bald headed man and quite possibly the hardest looking individual I've ever seen - well, I wouldn't mess with him. Next was Bernie Tormé a wild, eye-patched, pirate guitarist (he was later replaced by Janick Gers who would join Iron Maiden in the 1990s). Making up the rest of the band were Mick Underwood and Colin Towns: arguably the most interesting member of the band musically as he has gone on to become a successful film and TV composer.
This compilation, Unchain Your Brain: the Best of Gillan 1976-1982, covers all bases but, having most of the original albums, I would say that there are notable exceptions. I would have thought that most of Glory Road deserves to be on here but omitted tracks include On The Rocks, which features Tormé's extended feedback intro, and Nervous, which had a closed loop ending on vinyl (similar to The Beatles' Sgt Pepper album). I'd would also like to have heard Demon Driver from the Magic album. However, these are merely my preferences and I think the album does offer a good assessment of Gillan's solo years and particularly highlights their sense of humour, such as No Laughing In Heaven which gives a rather Monty Pythonesque take on false piety. My only real criticism is that this would have made more sense if it was chronologically sequenced. However, that would have meant that the less commercial Ian Gillan Band material would have taken up half of the first disk.
Overall a good buy for my £10 Amazon voucher but the early Gillan stuff has got me wondering about a bit of Jazz fusion for my collection.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Fuelly
I've always kept a tab on my fuel consumption and potential mileage is always a major influence on me when choosing a car. Partly, this is because I am concerned about the environmental impact of vehicle emissions and being minded to the fact that they are using a limited and depleting natural resource. However, mainly it is because I am a tight fisted bastard - not that I'm trying to live up to any sort of tired old Scottish stereotype.
To this end I always have an idea of what is a "good" mpg and what is "bad". My current car has exceeded expectations on this. They claim a figure of 50 mpg for the car but I would actually regard that as "bad" and typically only something I would see in the coldest winter months - although when we had the snow permanently down I did see significantly lower than this. The very best I've seen over a tank of fuel was 62 mpg but this was in mid-summer and mostly involved me driving at a steady 40 mph through the A80 roadworks. However, I have never kept a long term record of my fuel consumption.
I've decided that this is changing this year after coming across the website Fuelly. This is a free to use system that stores fuel consumption figures and allows the data to be freely viewed on the Internet. I'm normally not a big fan of this kind of public information sharing but the data is not of a particularly personal nature and the information gathered is very useful for anyone who wants to investigate real-world vehicle fuel consumption rather than the official laboratory produced figures which have very little bearing on the real world.
So far I have completed 3 fuel-ups and this has resulted in two average mpg figures for my car. I've added some other information about fuel type used and the type of driving so that like can be compared with like. I've also included the car's own trip computer readings so the accuracy of this can be assessed. So far it appears to be quite accurate if a little pessimistic. There are various tips on the website to improve fuel consumption but, aside from the bleeding obvious such as inflating tyres properly and not going too fast, it tends to be hair-raisingly stupid ideas like tailgating juggernauts and switching the engine off down steep hills.
Actually, I do regard myself as already being a fairly frugal driver but I wonder if recording consumption in public may have a Weight Watchers style effect on my driving style.
To this end I always have an idea of what is a "good" mpg and what is "bad". My current car has exceeded expectations on this. They claim a figure of 50 mpg for the car but I would actually regard that as "bad" and typically only something I would see in the coldest winter months - although when we had the snow permanently down I did see significantly lower than this. The very best I've seen over a tank of fuel was 62 mpg but this was in mid-summer and mostly involved me driving at a steady 40 mph through the A80 roadworks. However, I have never kept a long term record of my fuel consumption.
I've decided that this is changing this year after coming across the website Fuelly. This is a free to use system that stores fuel consumption figures and allows the data to be freely viewed on the Internet. I'm normally not a big fan of this kind of public information sharing but the data is not of a particularly personal nature and the information gathered is very useful for anyone who wants to investigate real-world vehicle fuel consumption rather than the official laboratory produced figures which have very little bearing on the real world.
So far I have completed 3 fuel-ups and this has resulted in two average mpg figures for my car. I've added some other information about fuel type used and the type of driving so that like can be compared with like. I've also included the car's own trip computer readings so the accuracy of this can be assessed. So far it appears to be quite accurate if a little pessimistic. There are various tips on the website to improve fuel consumption but, aside from the bleeding obvious such as inflating tyres properly and not going too fast, it tends to be hair-raisingly stupid ideas like tailgating juggernauts and switching the engine off down steep hills.
Actually, I do regard myself as already being a fairly frugal driver but I wonder if recording consumption in public may have a Weight Watchers style effect on my driving style.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
NOMA
I've been down in Newcastle this week for the first time in years. This was actually a work related trip but it gave me a chance to catch up with friends and family that I haven't seen in a while. It was an enjoyable trip, both from meeting up with people and the drive back up North along the A68 which is an enjoyable and picturesque road - at least when the weather is favourable.
One of my friends became a Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. Jehovah's Witnesses tend to get somewhat of a bad image, partly due to the stereotype of foot in the door evangelicalism and partly through the somewhat distorted image of their beliefs as portrayed by mainstream media. On the whole, I've found them to be both polite and respectful of others, even given their wish to spread their beliefs; and, whilst I don't particularly agree with much of their doctrine, I do think they have taken a courageous stand against such things as nationalism and militarism. Anyway, just as I was leaving, my friend asked if I would be interested in reading a leaflet about science. As I do have an interest in all things scientific, as well as religion and philosophy, I accepted the leaflet with the intention of reading it later.
The leaflet is called The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking. The questions asked tie in to the Witness's belief of biblical literalism and old-Earth creationism: that is, that God created the Earth in line with Genesis but that the time frame of the "days" are periods, potentially, of millions of years. This differs from some of the young Earth creationists who claim that the world was literally created in six days just over 6,000 years ago. This difference of time frames comes down to a differing theological interpretation of the original biblical texts and their translation. This is all interesting stuff but where the leaflet falls down is in that it chooses not to show how biblical beliefs and scientific discovery can be compatible but instead tries to denigrate the science of evolution.
The questions asked are How did life begin? Is any form of life really simple? Where did the instructions come from? Has all life descended from a common ancestor? and Is it unreasonable to believe the Bible? All the text is a rehash of Intelligent Design arguments and in every case it falls back on the position that if something is difficult to understand in scientific terms, then God must have done it. I couldn't see any form of rational or theological thinking in the leaflet and it tried to make its point mainly by making unfounded or distorted claims about evolutionary biology and then claiming that a literal interpretation of the bible has the answers instead. This is unfortunate, because I do think that religion has something to offer the world but what it does have to offer is not doing bad science. This idea was famously proposed by the palaeontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould as NOMA.
Non-overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA for short, is the concept that science and religion (and philosophy in general) are not in conflict with each other and are actually complimentary by allowing questions which cannot be answered in one realm to be answered in another. As Gould stated:
Of all scientific theories, Evolution seems to be the one that most vexes religion. Partly, this may be because it does run in the face of literal interpretations of religious text. I think a greater factor is that it shows nature to be "Red in tooth and claw" which seems to run counter to the idea of an all powerful and forgiving deity. In fact, it merely shows nature as it is, not how mankind should be. That is a matter for philosophical discussion - a matter for NOMA.
One of my friends became a Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. Jehovah's Witnesses tend to get somewhat of a bad image, partly due to the stereotype of foot in the door evangelicalism and partly through the somewhat distorted image of their beliefs as portrayed by mainstream media. On the whole, I've found them to be both polite and respectful of others, even given their wish to spread their beliefs; and, whilst I don't particularly agree with much of their doctrine, I do think they have taken a courageous stand against such things as nationalism and militarism. Anyway, just as I was leaving, my friend asked if I would be interested in reading a leaflet about science. As I do have an interest in all things scientific, as well as religion and philosophy, I accepted the leaflet with the intention of reading it later.
The leaflet is called The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking. The questions asked tie in to the Witness's belief of biblical literalism and old-Earth creationism: that is, that God created the Earth in line with Genesis but that the time frame of the "days" are periods, potentially, of millions of years. This differs from some of the young Earth creationists who claim that the world was literally created in six days just over 6,000 years ago. This difference of time frames comes down to a differing theological interpretation of the original biblical texts and their translation. This is all interesting stuff but where the leaflet falls down is in that it chooses not to show how biblical beliefs and scientific discovery can be compatible but instead tries to denigrate the science of evolution.
The questions asked are How did life begin? Is any form of life really simple? Where did the instructions come from? Has all life descended from a common ancestor? and Is it unreasonable to believe the Bible? All the text is a rehash of Intelligent Design arguments and in every case it falls back on the position that if something is difficult to understand in scientific terms, then God must have done it. I couldn't see any form of rational or theological thinking in the leaflet and it tried to make its point mainly by making unfounded or distorted claims about evolutionary biology and then claiming that a literal interpretation of the bible has the answers instead. This is unfortunate, because I do think that religion has something to offer the world but what it does have to offer is not doing bad science. This idea was famously proposed by the palaeontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould as NOMA.
Non-overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA for short, is the concept that science and religion (and philosophy in general) are not in conflict with each other and are actually complimentary by allowing questions which cannot be answered in one realm to be answered in another. As Gould stated:
"The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise — science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains — for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly."The concept of NOMA has been criticised by many, such as the leading atheist Richard Dawkins, and when looking at examples such as the Witness leaflet on evolution it would appear that he has a point. However, I still agree with Gould's stance. Science and religion/philosophy do work in different realms and they can, do and should inform each other. What Five Questions Worth Asking should be about is showing that whilst evolutionary theory may explain why things are as they are, it does not dictate how humans should behave to each other or how our morality is derived. Similarly, science cannot dictate ethics (although it can certainly inform them). An example of this would be the Eugenics movement which became so obsessed about how it could change human beings it forgot to ask whether it should. In fact, there is some evidence that the growth of creationist beliefs in the United States was in response to repugnance at sterilisation programmes which had been introduced by Eugenicists. Rather than rightly pulling the scientists up on legitimate ethical grounds, they merely chose to reject the science outright: a case of Very Overlapping Magisteria and a real missed opportunity by the American evangelical churches to add some balance to a rather bad case of Scientism.
Of all scientific theories, Evolution seems to be the one that most vexes religion. Partly, this may be because it does run in the face of literal interpretations of religious text. I think a greater factor is that it shows nature to be "Red in tooth and claw" which seems to run counter to the idea of an all powerful and forgiving deity. In fact, it merely shows nature as it is, not how mankind should be. That is a matter for philosophical discussion - a matter for NOMA.
Saturday, 5 February 2011
The Day The World Went Mad
The football transfer window is a fairly new affair which can, unfortunately, often become more entertaining than the on-field events. However, this years dealings have gone to the extremes of both high finance and high drama. Oddly enough, this is mostly down to the actions (and wallet) of one man.
It was looking like it would be one of the dullest January transfer windows on record. Liverpool had been cautiously asking around promising players to bolster their flagging and aging squad. It's a huge comedown for a team that were top of the Premier League just two years ago. Last Autumn it was beginning to look like they would suffer a Leeds United style downfall but, with new owners steadying the boat financially and a new manager improving their sporting endeavours, they were sniffing around to see if any players would be available on the cheap. In fact, they had some income from the sale of the constantly inconsistent Ryan Babel, so a modest signing wasn't going to break the bank. Of course, this is when our benefactor stepped in.
Roman Abramovich made his money in Russia's booming oil industry but he is probably known more widely for his love of football. There has been a long history of football benefactors who indulge their love of football by buying and investing in their local team. David Murray's ownership of Rangers and Jack Walker with Blackburn are two notable examples of businessmen indulging their football interests with the profits of their business dealings. However, Abramovich was one of the first to take up their football philanthropy with a club for which they had no obvious previous ties. On the one hand, this has been great for the fans of the lucky club but I am rather unsure whether it is healthy for the game in general. Murray bought in talented English players to Rangers - possibly at the expense of local Glasgow talent. Walker brought together a vast array of talent including Alan Shearer and manager Kenny Dalglish. Abramovich has taken this to a whole higher level.
There had already been a few notable signings: Dzeko to Man City for £27m, Makoun to Aston Villa for £6m and then Darren Bent, also to Aston Villa, for up to £24m. That last figure drew some breaths: £24m for Bent - is he really worth this? In fact, he probably is because the transfer window makes it very difficult for Sunderland to sign a replacement, quickly, without disrupting yet another team. It was only towards the end of January that rumours started to circulate that Fernando Torres may be on his way.
In fairness, Torres has looked deeply unhappy at Liverpool and even the spurt of form he has shown under new management can't hide the fact that this was not the top European side he imagined he was joining back in 2007. But is he seriously worth £50m? He was to Liverpool. They could not afford to let their top striker leave when they were already struggling to find another. They had made tentative offers to Ajax for Luis Suarez at around the £12m mark. From what I saw of him at the World Cup I think this was grossly undervalued (at least at today's silly prices) but he is Ajax's top scorer and if they were to be deprived of him mid-season then they needed compensating. Within hours of the news of the Torres move breaking Liverpool had agreed top dollar: £22.7m and a club record signing - at least for a few hours.
Chelsea had already been splashing the cash. David Luiz cost £21.3m from Benfica. He is a good player but this is a lot of money for a defender. However, it was soon clear that Chelsea would aim to invoke Torres's contract opt-out by offering £50m for him. How could Liverpool refuse? In fact, they couldn't - they were legally obliged to sell the player if he wanted to go. Within hours, Liverpool had moved for Newcastle's Andy Carroll for an eye watering £35m - and even then he is injured at the moment; how did he pass the medical? As good as Carroll has been in his short career, how can he possibly be worth £35m? Well, he was to Newcastle as they had no chance of finding a replacement.
Who has actually lost out in all this? Liverpool broke even financially but replaced a talented but disheartened and injury prone player and a player with unfulfilled promise with two of the most exiting young forwards to have emerged in the last couple of years. Suarez scored (an admittedly soft goal) on his debut although Carroll will take a few weeks recuperation before playing. Newcastle and Ajax are both without their star players but, at least, with a bundle of cash to ease their finances. Chelsea, and particularly Roman Abramovich, have spent a large fortune in the hope of buying success. Without his spending the only move of note would have been Darren Bent at the now seemingly reasonable price of £18-24m. The thing is, I don't think Abramovich cares too much about the money. It's all for his amusement after all. I just wonder if this kind of cash would be better spent on facilities for the fans or training programmes for young players - which, in fairness, Abramovich has done in his native Russia.
I think 31st January 2011 will go down as the day the football world went mad. I wish it would get back to entertainment on the pitch but, just as the Great Train Robbers played monopoly with real money, we now seem to have Billionaires playing X-Box FIFA 2011 with real footballers.
It was looking like it would be one of the dullest January transfer windows on record. Liverpool had been cautiously asking around promising players to bolster their flagging and aging squad. It's a huge comedown for a team that were top of the Premier League just two years ago. Last Autumn it was beginning to look like they would suffer a Leeds United style downfall but, with new owners steadying the boat financially and a new manager improving their sporting endeavours, they were sniffing around to see if any players would be available on the cheap. In fact, they had some income from the sale of the constantly inconsistent Ryan Babel, so a modest signing wasn't going to break the bank. Of course, this is when our benefactor stepped in.
Roman Abramovich made his money in Russia's booming oil industry but he is probably known more widely for his love of football. There has been a long history of football benefactors who indulge their love of football by buying and investing in their local team. David Murray's ownership of Rangers and Jack Walker with Blackburn are two notable examples of businessmen indulging their football interests with the profits of their business dealings. However, Abramovich was one of the first to take up their football philanthropy with a club for which they had no obvious previous ties. On the one hand, this has been great for the fans of the lucky club but I am rather unsure whether it is healthy for the game in general. Murray bought in talented English players to Rangers - possibly at the expense of local Glasgow talent. Walker brought together a vast array of talent including Alan Shearer and manager Kenny Dalglish. Abramovich has taken this to a whole higher level.
There had already been a few notable signings: Dzeko to Man City for £27m, Makoun to Aston Villa for £6m and then Darren Bent, also to Aston Villa, for up to £24m. That last figure drew some breaths: £24m for Bent - is he really worth this? In fact, he probably is because the transfer window makes it very difficult for Sunderland to sign a replacement, quickly, without disrupting yet another team. It was only towards the end of January that rumours started to circulate that Fernando Torres may be on his way.
In fairness, Torres has looked deeply unhappy at Liverpool and even the spurt of form he has shown under new management can't hide the fact that this was not the top European side he imagined he was joining back in 2007. But is he seriously worth £50m? He was to Liverpool. They could not afford to let their top striker leave when they were already struggling to find another. They had made tentative offers to Ajax for Luis Suarez at around the £12m mark. From what I saw of him at the World Cup I think this was grossly undervalued (at least at today's silly prices) but he is Ajax's top scorer and if they were to be deprived of him mid-season then they needed compensating. Within hours of the news of the Torres move breaking Liverpool had agreed top dollar: £22.7m and a club record signing - at least for a few hours.
Chelsea had already been splashing the cash. David Luiz cost £21.3m from Benfica. He is a good player but this is a lot of money for a defender. However, it was soon clear that Chelsea would aim to invoke Torres's contract opt-out by offering £50m for him. How could Liverpool refuse? In fact, they couldn't - they were legally obliged to sell the player if he wanted to go. Within hours, Liverpool had moved for Newcastle's Andy Carroll for an eye watering £35m - and even then he is injured at the moment; how did he pass the medical? As good as Carroll has been in his short career, how can he possibly be worth £35m? Well, he was to Newcastle as they had no chance of finding a replacement.
Who has actually lost out in all this? Liverpool broke even financially but replaced a talented but disheartened and injury prone player and a player with unfulfilled promise with two of the most exiting young forwards to have emerged in the last couple of years. Suarez scored (an admittedly soft goal) on his debut although Carroll will take a few weeks recuperation before playing. Newcastle and Ajax are both without their star players but, at least, with a bundle of cash to ease their finances. Chelsea, and particularly Roman Abramovich, have spent a large fortune in the hope of buying success. Without his spending the only move of note would have been Darren Bent at the now seemingly reasonable price of £18-24m. The thing is, I don't think Abramovich cares too much about the money. It's all for his amusement after all. I just wonder if this kind of cash would be better spent on facilities for the fans or training programmes for young players - which, in fairness, Abramovich has done in his native Russia.
I think 31st January 2011 will go down as the day the football world went mad. I wish it would get back to entertainment on the pitch but, just as the Great Train Robbers played monopoly with real money, we now seem to have Billionaires playing X-Box FIFA 2011 with real footballers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
