Edited for your displeasure.

Certainly, necessity would suggest that in order to get changed, one should at some stage have to be unclothed – this is a given and is quite acceptable. The issue of being unclothed only becomes an issue when, for example:

• Men sit bollocks-naked on the little benchy things (and thus leave scrot-box germs on them)
• Men take off their clothes to have a shower but then dawdle around; nispies swinging in the breeze,
• Men feel the need to put lotion on themselves, everywhere. Yes. Everywhere.
• Men find it necessary to shave, totally naked – in front of the mirror. Why would one need to be totally naked to do that; especially in the company of other men. Besides, just think what would happen if you dropped the razor…
• There are young good looking types bending down to tie their shoe laces and you walk past them with your nispy at eye height.

Step Two: Dress properly
I have seen people at the gym wearing Diesel shoes, Slip slops and most importantly a pair of Adidas Superstar 35th Anniversary shoes (the Berlin edition). Wear running shoes, that’s what god made them for.
When it comes to other clothing, one realises that body-builder types have mutated and abused their bodies to the point of them being unable to fit into normal clothes, but surely those silly oversized tee-shirts with the necks cut out of them are unnecessary? The same goes for those silly kind of pyjama/clown pants they wear.
In terms of women, is it necessary to wear as little as possible? Aren’t you afraid of popping out somewhere? I’ve heard stories of men “falling out” of those stupid running shorts, and while women’s anatomies certainly are more tantalising, surely this is a worry. One can still work out wearing a normal pair of shorts, instead of a pair the size of a glove.

Step Three: Do not touch yourself too much
Not only do muscle-mary types look at themselves in the mirror too much, I have personally witnessed one who was feeling his boob in the mirror. That can’t be good. The same goes for flexing in the mirror – can that not be done in the privacy of the home?

Step Four: If you sweat explosively, please do something about it
Some men manage to not just sweat so that it runs down their bodies, which is indeed a good indication that they are working hard, but some manage to get it to actually fly off their bodies on to the people surrounding them. If this occurs often, one should consider getting a plastic bubble in which to train.

Step Five: Don’t scream
We know you are strong. We know you can do big weights. We know your training partner is secretly in love with you and the tight cycling shorts you wear. It is not necessary to scream every time you lift; one understands the theory that screaming gives you a boost in order to lift heavier weights, but rather aim to scream inwardly, like the inward-screaming monks of Patagonia – they have been practising for hundreds of years. Similarly, do not throw your weights on to the ground after your set so that they make a big booming noise and everyone looks at you. Everyone knows you should take up another hobby, like reading – it’s not necessary to tell everyone.

That's a strong pepper. The other man has kind eyes.

Step Six: If you have strange tics, please try keep them to yourself
There are certain people one sees at the gym regularly and a small percentage of these people are twitchers (no, not bird-watchers, nutters). There is one lady who headbangs as she burns those calories on the stepping machine, and another who appears to shake her head while on the stationary bicycle, sunglasses on all the while.

I suggest therapy.

Step Seven: If you are going to use a spotter, do not get the spotter to do all the work
To give a quick definition of spotting: A spotter is someone who helps you to do the last 2-3 reps in a set of lifts. A spotter allows you to push yourself just past your limit and thus gain in strength. Many younger males of the human persuasion often take spotting to new highs. I have witnessed three people (veins bulging as they worked) helping someone lift an impossibly heavy weight for bench-press. This is silly. And stupid. Who are you fooling? Only your mom.

Step Eight: Parking close to the gym is redundant, you are going there to work out
Many people appear to spend ages circling the gym, looking for good parking. Surely if one is going to the gym to work out – it would help to park further away? Just a thought. Use it. Or use it.

Step Nine: Please bear in mind with the longer bars that as you take weights off one end it will cause the much-maligned see-saw effect.
Back when I was sixteen and still strong (seriously) a friend and I had just got off the bench-press and up sidled some middle-aged women – keen to improve those pecs of theirs. After complaining loudly that someone hadn’t taken the weights off, they began to take them off from only the one side, causing the much-maligned see-saw effect. The much-maligned see-saw effect occurs when the weights are taken off one side of the bar – this causes it to become unbalanced and as it becomes unbalanced – all of the weights on the heavier side slide off on to the floor – causing a huge kerfuffle and generally causing everyone to look at you. Now, as these women weren’t well versed in the much-maligned see-saw effect their actions caused it to happen, unfortunately for them; the lady wearing the ankle brace was standing on the side where all the weights fell off.

She was quite angry.

*Insert farting noise here*

nbsp;

Step Ten: Be wary of leg press machines
Having 350kg pushing your legs down so that your knees are under your chin and you are stuck like a little man-pretzel inside some gym equipment is not that fun, and quite embarrassing.

Yours flexingly,
(oooh it feels so hard and big)
Pole Wit

The point being: what I feel is not important. At least not to you. Even you with the exceedingly long nipples, well done, by the way, for making it out of the house – I’m proud of you. You could feed babies on the other side of the room. But, the Internet, and social media specifically are designed in such a way that your opinions, your pictures, your links, your everything are given centre stage. The paradox is that there are millions and millions of centre stages and the only member of the audience is a rather shiny mirror with a giant gold frame.

Some of you might have seen a documentary called Century of the Self, by Adam Curtis. This posits the theory that the idea of a self was not crystallised in human minds prior to the early twentieth century, where Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, used psychological techniques to further consumerism and influence people. For a very brief overview at Wikipedia, click this collection of linky letters. For a little more of an in-depth look, dive straight into this blue pool of linkage (The BBC’s page for Century of the Self). And, what with the wonders of free information, why not let your mouse hover over and chomp up these letters, which will allow you to download the entire documentary, for free. Don’t complain if you burn up your Internet.

Please bear in mind that my takeout from the documentary is almost as simplified as the plot to Twilight. So don’t kill me, or troll me, or start a flame war, or whatever it is that the Internet kids are doing now.

What we are seeing now, manifesting in the Internet is the evolution of this idea of the self. If or when you watch the documentary, you will see how the public had to be given this idea of the self. And then, they had to be taught that only by buying things, they could define who they were in relation to other people. The Century of the Self tells us that prior to this, humans only ever consumed what they needed. Am I guilty for owning 30 pairs of shoes. Yes. I am.

The Internet has evolved to meet this idea of the self and push it further than we could imagine. People celebrate themselves for no other reason than they are themselves. This doesn’t make sense to me. While one should certainly be happy with one’s self (I am happy with myself sometimes two, three times a day), I still don’t understand people’s need to blab so much. To literally cut themselves open and let it all pour out. I don’t like having your smelly, emo guts all over me, thank you very much. Perhaps because the Internet is so much more anonymous and there are less consequences than there are in real life, people are happier to air their dirty laundry without fear of recourse or someone looking at them funny with that slight sneer as if there’s a strange smell afoot.

Think of facebook status updates. I have seen more post-break-up wars of words than I care to count. And no one realises just how silly and childish they are. The same goes with overly emo status updates. No one cares that you’re upset, that you’re over it, that you quit or that you give up. Mentioning your dear Pep-pep that just died means nothing. Does your emotion only become validated when it is seen in a public forum? If there was no Internet would you have to run around in the streets with a sign around your neck (complete with an unhappy face, just to let people know for sure that you’re upset)? Or (and this is something that irritates me more than people trying to justify to me why Twilight has any merit whatsoever) are people just doing the old emotional fishing? This can take the form of fishing for compliments or fishing for sympathy. Either way it’s pretty lame. As soon as people fish for compliments or sympathy around me, I tend to ignore their pleas quick-smart.

I think it’s the assumption that your emotions, your insides, are worthy of public consumption that frightens me. I define myself (on the Intertubes and to a large extent in real life) by what I create, by what content I put forward. It doesn’t matter that I was the youngest person to reach the South Pole wearing only underpants and green nipple tassels, or that I entered the Winter Olympics for the antique pipe-smoking and typewriter abuse events and won gold at both (and had to get a really bad tattoo to let you all know that I was there). What matters is the content that I produce.

I define my value by what I can create. What I can bring into being from nothingness. My selfish hopes and dreams have nothing to do with any of you. You can ask me and if I feel like it, I might share some things with you, but I hope I will never overshare my personal life. It’s really not that interesting. And neither is yours. Even if you’re quirky and zany. And you know what? Even being kooky is not enough. What I’m interested in is your responses to things, big things, not the way your best friend’s ex-girlfriend totally likes you but you’re not sure if you should do her or not because bla bla bla bla, I’m sorry I couldn’t read any more of your self-serving blog because I was stabbing an oyster fork into my eyes.

I don’t even like oysters and I wear glasses. You can imagine the amount of effort needed to just undertake such an action.

Dear readers. There is a difference between blogging and writing. I am not a blogger. The democratisation of the Internet has been its biggest boon and its biggest bugbear. The idea that information and content can be created and shared by anyone is still one of the most exciting things I’ve ever come across. Just thinking about twitter makes my brain wet, when I consider what a thrilling, dynamic conversation it can be. It can also be a whole lot of emotional whining, or mind-vomit, don’t get me wrong. This democratisation has allowed anyone to start a blog, a place where they can share their talent with the world (if they have any). Or they can share pictures. If that’s their thing. I’m generally about as visual as Stevie Wonder. But please kids, stick to your talents. The piss-stained sepia look does not make your photos more arty, even if you’re pouting as best you can, sticking your neck out so that your double chin doesn’t show and standing with the biggest group of friends you can find, to prove how cool you are. Ditto black and white. Black and white photos should be left to the professionals. Or dogs.

You can become righteously indignant. Tell me I’m no better than you. That I’m a bastard for slapping the sunburn that is your personality. I’m just as boring as you are. I just recognise that I am. And anything I share in a public sphere I try to make interesting. Especially if it’s actually about me.

Yours (in parentheses),
Paul White

The modern era is all about differentiating factors. These can take many forms. Some of them may be physical (i.e. A skew eye, one leg shorter than the other, wearing your underpants outside your pants or a skin condition) some of them may be mental (i.e. Being incredibly stupid) and others still may have to do with your personality (i.e. Being an asshole, not being an asshole and the very subject of this piece: being funny). The thing is, we are all unique – just like everyone else and therefore people feel the neehd to “stand out” and “make a statement”. A great physical differentiating factor that I have is that I can click my knuckles, just by making a fist. I see it as “investing in my future”. Another differentiating factor I have is the ability to use the so-called, “inverted commas.” See, I just did it there.

But enough of this, “poppycock” and “lollygagging”, let us now open Door Number One and see what is behind it – “How to be funny in the modern era.”

There are many ways to be funny. For example: slapstick comedy. Slapstick comedy usually works well on the mentally ill and the young. It basically involves falling over and hurting yourself. Kind of like when your grandmother fell over, broke her hip and then whimpered about it until her leg went gangrenous and died and they had to amputate her face – except she wasn’t doing it to be funny, she was doing it because she had a weak character and terrible balance – ever since that incident with the blank CD and the roquefort. Should you want to make people laugh in a style of slapstick, HEADLINE payoff suggests that you fall over at random times, preferably when people are watching. With no laughs to assuage your pain, slapstick comedy can be a painful experience to say the least and a debilitating experience to say the most. Remember that you could be falling over into a campfire, or some spikes or even a vat full of acid, so always look before you attempt this manoeuvre. Other ways to engage in a bit of the old slapstick include: throwing pies at yourself (to do this, simply bake a boomerang into a pie), hitting people with things (like an octopus for example – slapstick to the max) or driving your car at 120km/h into a wall.

To segue into the next method, let me just say that slapstick comedy is basically a stick you use to slap someone in the face with – thereby gaining some laughs.

Yes, it’s time to pun my people. A pun is a play on words. Many people find puns to be funny (or is that punny?), I do myself – because I like words. Other than asshole, I have been called “Wordy William” before. Puns generally rely on a word having a double meaning. Permit me to demonstrate.

A young boy comes up to you with some paper wings stuck to his schoolbag. You tell him that, that just isn’t going to fly. He cries. You laugh. A pun.

A young boy comes up to you with some paper wings stuck to his schoolbag. You tell him that you have herpes. He gets confused. You cry. Not a pun.

Right, I hope that you’ve got that all cleared up. (To be punny at this point, consider making a joke linking “cleared up” to acne or linking “right” to write.)

Another way to be funny is the knock-knock joke. I am quite sure that the majority of you are au fait with such humour so instead, I will show you some knock-knock jokes that don’t work at all (one could argue also that jokes that aren’t funny are funny, but there are only so many people with such an intricate understanding of the spiky quagmire that is post modernism that will be able to appreciate such (anti?) humour.)

l  Knock knock.

Who’s there?

Your mother.

My mother who?

Your mother’s dead. She died of Tuberculosis of the foot.

l  Knock knock.

Who’s there?

Table.

Table who?

Table cloth that matches your serviettes.

l  Knock knock.

Who’s there?

Stephen.

Stephen who?

Gerald.

Now, let me carry on to a surefire yet simple method to be funny that I have come up with myself, after sucking up many minutes of humour into my lifehole, digesting it, assimilating it and forming my own opinions about it, after making minutes of all the humour I assimilated and emailing it to my email address I use for work related issues. This method will henceforth be known as my audaciously divine rule of 3. The method works thusly: list 3 things, make the first two very normal and make the final one something off the wall (no, not a painting, punballs). It is this contrast that makes the third thing mentioned so funny. It is this same principle that made you laugh so much when your little sister had an accident in church. On the priest.

So, without being any more prolix than I have to be (even though mentioning prolix, may itself be prolix – good Christhell I am off my tits on post modernism), let me get on to some examples of my audaciously divine rule of 3. NB: The third word often has a sexual connotation but it does not have to have one.

• Boiled eggs, lawnmowers and masturbating.
• Keyboards, microchips and Jesus’ beard.
• Running, stamp-collecting and frottage.
• Bench press, carpets and brain surgery.
• Blank CD’s, a fan with 3 variable speed settings and Michael Jackson.

Perhaps what makes this method so funny is that there is an inherent narrative between the three things mentioned. Imagine the story that revolves around boiled eggs, lawnmowers and masturbating. Definitely a story I would like to read. This method can be used in response to questions as well. Take a look under this antique armoire here and see what I’m talking about:

Q: So, what did you eat for breakfast today?

A: Eggs, bacon and a G-Strap I got from my dog’s bed.

Q: So what’s wrong with you, why weren’t you at work yesterday?

A: I had: emphysema, asthma and a large hotdog.

Right, well my squidsausages – if that’s not enough for you to be funny, you could always just send people our way – sometimes just knowing what’s funny can count as a sense of humour – and as far as we’re concerned – we’re pretty funny. If you’re still battling with the idea of differentiating factors in the modern era, I am sure I can rustle up a piece explaining that for you.

Enjoy the meat, potatoes and salad tossing,

Paul

So what is fusion?  Fusion is the primary means of producing energy at use in the universe.  It is the reaction that powers stars, and is the original source of all of the energy we use every day. Currently the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient source of energy we have is nuclear fission.  It’s unpopular, but it’s the best.  Allow me to explain the difference between fission and fusion.

Nuclear Fission happens when you take a heavy atom, like Uranium, and split it.  Splitting it produces two by-products (which are rather toxic), and a lot of energy. This energy is then used to heat water to produce steam, and the steam powers turbines which in turn generate electricity.

Nuclear Fission

Fusion, on the other hand, is when you take two light elements and slam them together.  When they join, they give off the excess energy they don’t need in order to remain stable, and this can then be used to heat water, etc.  The difference is that the by-product is substantially less harmful: it is Helium or water vapour (depending on the type of reaction used).

A Fusion Reaction

Fusion has come into the media spotlight lately because a group of scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California are attempting to brew up some fusion using the biggest, most bad-ass laser ever created.  They will use this laser to create what can best be described as a small star on the surface of the earth.

The concept is simple: take deuterium and tritium (two versions of Hydrogen that are heavier than the regular stuff), and bombard it with this giant laser.  The massive influx of energy will hopefully force the nuclei of the two substances to combine, producing a controllable fusion reaction.

Tritium-Deuterium Fuel

The emphasis here is on ‘controllable’ – fusion has been available to us in the form of nuclear weapons for over half a century, but these are runaway reactions that simply liberate massive amounts of energy in a rather destructive way.  Controllable fusion is the containment of this reaction in such a way that its energy can be harnessed.

Allow me to take a break here to read you some comments from the bottom of that site, because I really want to dispel some myths about this:

QuantumG says: “omgzz isnt that like kinda dangerus…I mean do we really want a star right next to us…it will be really hot n burn us all havent you people ever seen the sun…I mean i dont think teh scientists are as smart as they think they are or they woulda thoght of that…..2012 is near…”

This comment was added in jest, but it mirrors a lot of the doomsayers on that comment thread.  Their concerns are as follows:

• The ‘star’ will go supernova and kill us all
• The star will burn everything and kill us all
• The star will form a black hole like the Large Hadron Collider, and kill us all

And they are all bullshit.  The reaction will be the size of a ‘BB pellet’, and in the worst case scenario it will expire in a puff of smoke and radioactive particles.

The major concern, of course, is that it will take more energy to produce the reaction than we will get from it.  And it almost certainly will.  But it’s a stepping stone towards something much, much greater.  Unfortunately, this is not the view of a lot of people, most notably some of the projects funders.

Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist and nuclear physicist at the Naturaldeu Resources Defense Council, said:

“The world needs to employ existing fixes for climate change rather than looking for a technological silver bullet that will prove to be too expensive for commercial energy production anyway… If you want to do [research and development] to alleviate climate change, you have to have technologies that can be brought online soon.”

In my opinion, this view is extremely narrow minded.  As I pointed out in my article ‘5 Technologies That Will Lead to the Singularity‘ controllable fusion will be a major breakthrough for humanity – practically an end to our energy woes.  This will probably lead to massive reduction in living costs, and production costs for basic goods and consumer items.  It may even lead to an overhaul of the world’s financial system, as much of our need for wealth comes from fact that we trade it for energy.

Unfortunately, this kind of development is being quietly resisted by one of the biggest political forces in the world: the oil industry.  If humanity has the ability to create nearly limitless energy from what is essentially broken up seawater, the world’s demand for fossil fuels will drop dramatically (not altogether – electric cars still suck).  This will hurt the pockets of a lot of rich people, who wield a lot of power.

The attitude that fusion is a fruitless endeavor or a pipe dream is troubling.  A valid point in the face of climate change and the need for renewable energy, but hardly a reason to give up the quest entirely. It will be a long time in coming – possibly many decades – before the first fusion power plants come online.  But when they do, it will herald the start of cultural and technological change on a scale that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like the move from briefs to boxers.

Unfortunately the budgets for fusion experiments are small, and funding drops every year as people get worried about the credit crisis and the environment, etc. This is the opposite of what should be happening.  We should be pouring all available resources into this massively important goal, so that our children will be able to reap the benefits of living in a world not bound by its own supply of dirty coal energy, and free from the spectre of a warming planet.

Afrika Burn is not for everyone.  That said, it’s definitely something you should experience.  A lot of our visitors will be familiar with large outdoor trance parties like Easter and New Years Vortex, Alien Safari, and a whole host of smaller (and arguably better) independent outdoor progressive and electro parties.  Afrika Burn is not like this.

Those of you expecting to fill up on chemicals, grab a double vodka Red Bull from the bar and bounce around past sunrise should check your attitude at the gates, and relinquish any preconceptions about trance parties before you even think about it.

This year, The Daily Discharge staff photographer Cameron Richards is not only attending – he is investing himself fully in the event.  He will be spending nearly a month in the desert (and many long nights beforehand) as part of the DPW (Department of Public Works) crew, helping to set up and provide the basics for the festival goers.  He is also helping to build the main sculpture, called ‘San Clan’, which we expect to look something like this (and is traditionally burnt at the climax of the festival):

His mission for the festival will be to take as many photographs as possible, documenting the entire process for his final year Photography project (Cameron is currently a fine art student at UCT’s Michaelis School of Art).  His images from last year’s Afrika Burns 2009 were nothing short of breathtaking, and we expect that this year he will outdo himself.

Afrika Burn is held on the longest stretch of highway without a town on either side (the literal middle of nowhere), and is an “experiment in temporary community building, radical self expression, self-reliance and non-commercialism”.  What that means is that there are no cash bars, no trinket stalls, and nothing to buy (or even barter for).  Your money is no good there.  You must either bring everything you need, or rely on the community’s generosity for your needs.  To quote from their website:

“This “gift economy” means that there is no commercial exchange at the event – no vending, no cash bars and no branded promotion of services or products – the aim being real social interaction. It is an exercise in total self-reliance: participants camp for four days and provide entirely for themselves, including all their water, shelter and food needs”

What’s more, everyone who comes to the festival is expected to “gift” something to the community.  This can be as simple as handing out orange slices in the noon sun or playing the guitar by the campfire, or as elaborate as building a large structure (or ‘Wish’) to be burnt as an offering to the community.

Image © Cameron Richards Photography

“If you come to AfrikaBurn, you must participate in whatever way you can. We want no spectators.”

If this sounds like a bunch of hippy nonsense, and all far too dirty and dusty for you: save yourself the trouble and stay at home.  But think hard before you write it off.  This is an experience of a lifetime, waiting for you to grab it.

The principles and ideology behind Afrika Burn come from those embraced originally by the Burning Man festivals abroad (although rumour has it that these festivals have sadly lost some of their free spirit and open, community-oriented atmosphere).

The bottom line, and something we wish to stress, is that everyone is welcome.  The festival’s principles of radical inclusion (whoever you are, we accept you) and immediacy (immediate experience being the touchstone of the Afrika Burns society) are paramount, and everyone who attends needs to bear these in mind.

Afrika Burn 2010 may be just a five-day event, but the company itself (Afrika Burns) aims to be a continuous collaboration that will foster large-scale public art and the sharing of creative energy.  It is a not-for-profit organisation, with any money earned being returned to the artistic community through art grants.

To sum up: this is not just a trance event, or a music festival, or an art exhibition.  It is not just a party, an event, or a road trip.  It is a departure from everything you have come to know and expect from modern society, and a drastic step towards finding new ways of being part of humanity. I’d like to leave you with this quote from the organisers:

“Afrika Burns aims to be radically inclusive: we hope that its meaning is potentially accessible to anyone. The touchstone of value in our culture will always be immediacy: experience before theory, moral relationships before politics, survival before services, roles before jobs, embodied ritual before symbolism, work before vested interest, participant support before sponsorship.  We hope that the ideas in the principles will become a way of life for those who have experienced them, spawning independence, initiative and creative expression.”

So think about it, and if you don’t go this year, put it on your bucket list.

This documentary by Richard Bolland (richardbolland.co.za), a young film-maker from Cape Town, and Pete Portal tells the story of Dowayne’s teenage years, and his turning point.  Through interviews with Dowayne and some of those closest to him we learn how he started using drugs and participating in a gang from his early teens, and how he plans to change that for himself and for others.  We hear a brutally honest account of participating in violent crimes, and what it is like growing up in this kind of environment

The documentary is a narrative snapshot, with the context only a documentary can give, of the current point in time where Dowayne is choosing to make a difference.  It conveys more hope than solutions, and leaves the viewer with a sense that the end of the road is still a long way off for Dowayne and thousands of young people like him.

I Dream Manenberg from Richard Bolland on Vimeo.

Credits:

Directed, filmed and edited by: Richard Bolland

Directed and produced by: Pete Portal

Music by: Peter Szwach

For more information visit Project Cape Town

Dowayne, the subject of I Dream Manenberg, gives a gritty and honest account of his way of life

However, this post isn’t about the past. This is about the future. So I spent some time considering the vile leaders of the past and present who will in some way become apart of the next generation’s lives:

Kroks

In an effort to relaunch the brand, Croc will aim their famous product at their largest market, the Afrikaaner. The Groot Krokodil range will be a best seller, ensuring every boer has the comfort of plastic beneath his feet.

I can like to be comfortable

Vodka Stalin

With communist-chic currently en vogue, one smart marketing executive will see the true meaning behind Stalin’s Purges:

Pass me the bucket, peasant.

Osama Bed Linen

That’s just his name isn’t it?

Rest in Peace!

My point to all this: Do some critical thinking before you just wear whatever others are, or whatever is considered in this season. You may just save yourself from being considered an ignorant douche-bag.

Author’s preface:

This began as a rant about why I could never get friends to come to gigs in Cape Town, but has turned into more of a sociology paper.  I was finally prompted to write it when a friend of mine, Brett Allen-White, asked why there were no girls at shows apart from the girlfriends of band members, and it started a massive discussion of gender politics in the local underground music scene.

This article will most likely be the first in a series, as I develop my thoughts around this complex topic.

A Note  on Terminology:

I will refer to ‘The Scene’ very often (with a capital ‘S’). It might seem trite to those who know me, but for those reading this out of interest: by this I mean the small collection of bands, most of which do not have record labels, who play regularly in venues like The Assembly, the Purple Turtle, Mercury Live and Zula Bar in Cape Town, and the people who support them. In my opinion, this scene can be described as ‘underground’, as it is not popular, but still has large covert appeal (by covert I mean as opposed to the overt appeal of swanky nightclubs and popular beaches). This can of course be generalized to most underground or niche music scenes.

The Cape Town music scene is not well-known by most people.  In fact, most people who consider themselves fans of local music have probably never encountered the ‘Scene’ I am speaking of. It exists in small bars, and venues dedicated to live music on a small scale. The types of places you wouldn’t venture unless you were going there for a reason – like to see a band.  The bands that play are amateurs, by and large, and the members usually have day jobs to support their love of music.  The purpose of this article is to investigate why this scene is ‘un-cool’, given the natural behaviour of the ‘cool’ phenomenon.

Live at the Purple Turtle

Allow me to explain. Popular theory around ‘coolness’ is that it emanates from the lower rungs of popular society – the underground.  The theory is that a small group of people who are looked up to by another group of slightly less-cool people will innovate a new trend, a new fashion, or a new style of music.  This will be picked up by their followers, but initially shunned by the majority of young cool-seekers.

However, after a short period of time the more progressive amongst the ‘majority’ (and by this I mean the mainstream – the people who define style by what is depicted in the mainstream media, and that which can be easily found in local hotspots and the vicinity of celebrities) will start to pick up the trend.  It will eventually reach critical mass, and soon everyone is wearing skinny jeans and spiked belts, even though they are far removed from the bands and fans that first started doing this.

Obviously, once everyone is wearing skinny jeans and spiked belts, they stop being cool – that is the nature of fashion. So my question is that if these trends originate in this Scene, why isn’t the Scene itself more popular?

A common complaint about the Scene goes something like this: “The bands suck. The sound at the venues is terrible.  They’re always hot and smoky. The chicks are short, fat and have too many piercings, and the guys all wear eyeliner.”  So why on earth would anyone go to these gigs?

Here’s where the irony comes in.  The people who are attracted to this kind of social event are, for the most part, those who do not fit in or do not feel comfortable in places that are conventionally popular – at least when they reach social maturity and start to go out to clubs and bars. These are the un-cool kids. The places where their friends’ bands are playing can be scary at first, but very quickly the Otherness of the places begins to make these lost souls feel at home.  They identify with it, and begin to feel pride and take confidence from the fact that they, out of all of their peers, understand it.  Liking something that nobody else likes can be difficult, but for certain personality types it is extremely satisfying.

The question to be answered here is, why don’t all the cool kids flock to these gigs?  If anything, to see what’s going to be cool tomorrow?  The answer lies in incentives.

Incentives, if you’ve read Freakonomics, are basically what motivates most human interactions that involve the exchange of a commodity.  Our commodity in this case is coolness itself. For those who are ‘members’ of the Scene, there are plenty incentives to go to gigs.  All your friends are there, you get to see bands you like, and you come out of it feeling like you belong to something bigger.  Those are just a few of the things that people who put time into the Scene get out of it.

On the other hand, for an outsider, there is very little incentive to try to penetrate this little world.  As mentioned above, the bands are not ‘good’ enough to attract people purely by virtue of their name or their music.  The venues have little to recommend themselves as hotspots, and the overall quality of the production is not of a consistently high standard.

But that’s not all. The coolness of the Scene depends entirely on the constant activity and input of its members.  They create the trends, the music and the fashion that define that little corner of subculture. Why bother going to a place you don’t know, listening to bands you don’t know, with a bunch of people who probably scare you, when you can get all of that stuff second hand, for “cheaper”, simply by letting it permeate upwards through the social strata?

The ‘good’ parts of the scene – those that the mainstream decides are cool – filter upwards, and become far more easily accessible to everyone else.  There is no incentive to seek out a social arena that offers little rewards to the casual visitor. Especially if that casual visitor’s motivation is to increase their own exposure to coolness, or to find some of their own.

Why is this? When did we become so hostile to newcomers? Surely it seems counter-productive to make the events we’re trying so hard to promote into an environment that’s hard for newcomers to access? We all say that we want people to come to our shows, but in reality we have built the Scene from the early days into an exclusive club, because that’s what being underground is all about.

So what do we do? Do we make it more user-friendly and soft around the edges, so people can come?  Do we need more money, better bands and bigger venues? On the one hand, this would help.  Improving the general quality of shows would attract more people – it’s my guess that most people aged eighteen to their late twenties don’t ever go to see bands except for more than once or twice a year.  In fact, the next time you go to The Assembly to watch some bands, take a look around you: you’ll see copies of One Small Seed on the tables (don’t get me started), a big bar with expensive drinks and pretty bar girls, and decent sound.  This could be the future.

If we had more people coming, we’d have more money in the scene, and that would lead to better venues, better sound, and more support for more bands, some of which would be good.  But we don’t necessarily want this. Not really. If we make it easy for the people who go to parties sponsored by major radio stations and events companies to come to our shows, we’re not the elite anymore.

The Scene is something that we feel we own. If everyone is coming to shows, we’re not special. And as I mentioned right at the start, if everyone is doing it, it ceases to be cool.  So while the Scene is traditionally un-cool, it needs to stay this way in order for it to be a source of tomorrow’s conventional cool.

This was Part One of a series of articles I intend to write on this interesting section of the counter-culture.  It will hopefully develop through discussion with those involved, and those who are not.  The next topic I intend to tackle is the aforementioned Brett’s question about why the scene is male-dominated, with girls traditionally being transitory girlfriends of band members or fans who lose interest when their punk phase passes.  I plan to write another on the phenomenon of a place like The Assembly in Cape Town, and it’s effect on the Scene. But in due course.

I hope this started some of you thinking.  Leave a comment if you’d like to contribute to the discussion.

Friends and fans alike are mourning the impending loss of Oprah Winfrey’s syndicated talk show in 2011, sharing the sentiment that it will be very difficult to fill the Queen of Media’s high heels.

Fellow talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, who appeared on the cover of O, The Oprah Magazine’s December issue with Winfrey, broke the news to her in-studio audience at the taping of Thursday’s show that she had received a personal phone call from Winfrey about the announcement. DeGeneres told her audience that she could not have achieved her own personal success if Winfrey hadn’t been such a trailblazer before her.

“I don’t think I could be here without her. I think she has blazed a trail. … She is an amazing woman. She will always be the queen of daytime television,” DeGeneres said. “She is an amazing woman. I love her and we’ve gotten very close over this ridiculous idea that I had of getting on the cover of O.”

“Oprah” contributor Lisa Ling said she was surprised to find out about the talk show host’s decision to end the show. The show’s staff called her before the announcement broke in order to give her a heads up. Ling, who has worked on segments for Winfrey about bride-burning and child trafficking, said there isn’t a television personality out there who will be able to take her place.

“I don’t think anyone can fill Oprah’s shoes,” Ling said. “Really, she’s someone who has maintained such incredible integrity throughout her career and that’s the thing that I admire the most of her. I mean, she hasn’t allowed herself to deviate and I’m really proud of her for that.”

Actress Elizabeth Reaser concurred at the New York premiere of “New Moon,” saying, “no one could fill her shoes.”

The “Oprah Winfrey Effect” extended far beyond her interviewing prowess and camaraderie with fans. The Oprah Book Club she founded in 1996 has become a powerhouse in publishing, able to turn even the most obscure new titles and forgotten classics into instant bestsellers.

“The show totally changed the way people viewed books over my decades in publishing. A book that may have sold 11,000 copies would sell 511,000 copies after Oprah talked about it,” Friedman said. “Oprah gave people permission to read. These were people who didn’t read before. I don’t know what is going to happen in traditional publishing with Oprah not being there.”

The millions of mourners worldwide will just have to remember that the “Oprah” legacy will live on in a different format. Winfrey will premiere the Oprah Winfrey Network, a partnership with Discovery Communications, in January 2011.

Editor’s note: Good Heavens!  She’s not dead, she just got a better contract.

You know that you’ve almost caught the dragon but you really can’t keep going anymore. So you put the drugs away and settle in for cold turkey, a few days of screaming agony and loss of bodily function later you take a shower, throw the hooker off a pier tied to a rock and emerge to see what’s happened in the world in your absence.

He taunts me

So lets take a look a a few of the things I’ve found about what  happened while I was out

Christopher Walken reading the lyrics to pokerface:

I really don’t think I need to add anything here. It’s Christopher Walken.

The Citi Golf has Finally Gone Out of production

I had one of these, most people have driven at least one in their lives, now it’s gone, to be honest I say good riddance, the comedy handling was ridiculous.  Things things really have come a long way since ze germans designed that thing back in the 70′s. And we were the only country in the world still churning out those boxy monsters.

They had their place but I’m glad to see them gone. No one should ever have to suffer through owning a Brand New golf mk1. Now they’ll be sold where they belong: in second-hand lots.

They're gone now

To commemorate Vdub are haveing a tour with the last one ever produced. It’ll be cruising around the country and fans in the various destination cities will be able to sign on the car, if that sounds like your cup of tea then keep the 20th of November free, they haven’t revealed the location yet so you’d better check the goodbyeciti page closer to the date in question. Also if you’re not from Cape Town you’ll have to check to see when it’ll be in your city.

and Finally

The Invictus Trailer is out

Enjoy Morgan Freeman slipping in and out of Madiba’s accent. And Matt Damon talking like a clutchplate.

Looks decent doesn’t it?

That is unfortunately all for now. I have to go find something to eat to put some more flesh back onto my emaciated body. I’m gonna fatten myself up so that next time I can keep going long enough to catch that fucking dragon.