Rock 'n' Roll Will Never Die

Is it better to burn out or fade away? Neil Young pondered as he wrote Hey Hey My Myback in 1979 – Should he keep making the same music or walk away from it all, like Johnny Rotten of The Sex Pistols had just done? His words would resonate with rock legends past and future, and leave us all wondering the same.

A year later, John Lennon was shot down by a disillusioned fan with Catcher in the Rye in his back pocket. As life left him on the New York pavement, myth engulfed him – This was a man who had perpetrated his own living myth through his musical genius and eccentricities; a man that had once seriously considered that he was the re-incarnation of Jesus; a man that had led the greatest band that ever existed and then left that band to make his own wondrous music… His senseless murder immortalised the legend of Lennon, and the only person that could tarnish that image was gone.

The other half of the famous song-writing duo, Paul McCartney, would live on – His face would age, his voice would falter and his creativity would slowly fade. What if it was McCartney that had died young with his youthful image emblazoned in our collective memories? He would forever be the baby-faced Beatle at the height of his creativity, with endless hope and possibility in his eyes.

If Lennon had lived, age would have weathered his face and the emotional power of his voice would have faded. Would he be playing Imagine over and over again to the cries of adoring fans or join Ringo up on stage playing his old Beatles tracks at reunion concerts? Would he deride Western Government’s for their involvement in Middle Eastern Wars or would he live a quiet humble life away from the spotlight? He certainly wouldn’t be the mythical dream that he has become… shining in his white angel-suit, his long hair half-covering his small round glasses, his eyes alert, looking out daringly from above his long, unkempt beard... this image immortalised by the tragedy of his death – For it is only the living that can damage their legend.

Neil Young pondered whether it’s better to burn out or fade away. A decade and a half later the same thought was pondered in much more terrifying and tragic circumstances. Kurt Cobain had written them on his suicide note before he shot himself – Maybe he wanted to be immortalized. He was 27 years old at the time of his death and there was something mystical about that. After all, Jimi Hendix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones and Janis Joplin had all died at 27, remaining forever young in the hearts of their fans. They were all shy, talented, and filled with a penchant for self-destruction. One wonders if they could have lived on – Imagine Jim Morrison as an old man! Some it seems are destined for myth. Life can’t hold them. They shine too brightly, ‘like a shooting star’, as Morrison once mused.

James Dean was another that shined bright. He lived fast and died young. So much so, that he came to embody the phrase "live fast, die young and leave a beautiful-looking corpse." So much has myth enveloped this young actor, who starred in just three films, that this phrase, taken from the 1949 movie Knock on Any Door, has been misattributed to him. It fits his legend – a handsome rebel with a love for fast cars, a great actor that was destined for big things on the big screen but found a different sort of immortality when he was killed by the roadside at 24.

James Dean died so young and so early in his career that a legend has been made from tiny glimpses of his life, gleamed through his short body of film work – In two of his films he was a rebel. Elvis, on the other hand, lived too long – destroying the legend that he had created. Our lasting image of Elvis is not the magnetic, handsome, brilliant rock ‘n’ roll star that melted ladies hearts with his smile and scorched the sensibilities of middle America with his provocative jives, but of a sad, overweight has-been, addicted to prescription pills, and hardly able to walk let alone sing and dance. The man that had been the King was little more than a joke towards the end. He cheated his myth by staying on this earth too long, and his legend faded before his life ended.

Some, like Keith Richards, can live fast and live long – and their legend seems to only grow with age, but for most – age will only diminish them. To burn out – to live fast and die young – leaves the legend as it was, at its creative peak – forever young with infinite possibilities. The myth becomes reality – Hendrix will always be the God of Electric; blazing on that guitar, dazzling at Woodstock, taking psychedelic rock into the stratosphere and his audiences through colourful voyages into the subconscious. His gravelly face is still young and full of rebellion; his clothes are still bright, rainbow-like; his hair is still thick and curly and his music will always be magical. There is no chance for his music to become mediocre with age, no chance for his performances to descend into farce. His death immortalised him in a way that the living can never achieve – he can never fade away!

The brightest stars don’t often burn the longest. They light up the night sky for one brief moment, and that moment is worth more than everything else around it, dazzling for a brief moment before disappearing forever.

Neil Young returns to the stage for his farewell tour; his hair is grey, and he’s looking a little heavier than in years gone. He is happy - There is no place he'd rather be. He stands by the microphone in his black corduroy jacket, guitar in hand, bouncing ever so slightly to the beat. ’Hey Hey My My, Rock ‘n’ Roll will never die’ – His voice is not what it used to be, but he’s still got a touch of the soft melodic folk drawl that made him a legend. ’The King is gone but he’s not forgotten, this is the story of Johnny rotten’  He looks to the adoring crowd as he embarks on the last chorus ‘It’s better to bun out than fade away’  He closes his eyes and thinks of Kurt Cobain. A lump rises in his throat, and for a second he ponders the same thoughts that filled him when he wrote the song in a different lifetime. As he comes to the end, he opens his eye, looks around, and then lets rips on his guitar. The sound hangs in the air for a moment before it slowly fades away.

It’s Time to Spend to Save

The recently elected Coalition Government found itself managing an economy in record levels of debt. Figures published by the Office of Nationals Statistics in March 2010 showed UK Government Debt to be £950 billion (68.1% of GDP) with an annual deficit in 2009 of £159.2 billion (11.4% of GDP) – This is the amount the public sector owes to the private sector. There are two ways this money can be paid back – saving the money though cutting expenditure or spending money, encouraging economic growth within the country and receiving more revenue from tax as a result. 

The current English Government has opted to cut public spending – to save money and reduce the National debt by cutting jobs in the public sector.

The main concern with this model is that cutting jobs also cuts the economy.  The current plan is to cut around 30% of all public-sector jobs. 610,000 jobs have been forecast to be lost over the next 6 years by the Office for Budget Responsibility. If this goes to plans, as David Cameron hopes, a swathe of people working in the public sector will be out of work and living without an income.

The Government argues that the private sector will absorb these jobs as the policy will drive down debts and encourage investment. If this sudden upsurge in private-sector employment fails to materialise, then unemployment will rise sharply as a result of the job cuts and the newly unemployed will turn to Government Benefits to survive.  The Government could well be substituting payments of wages in lieu of output for payments of benefits in lieu of nothing.  The net Government output in terms of payments would obviously be smaller as benefits are generally lower than public-sector wages, however, any savings would be offset by a corresponding reduction in tax revenue.  The unemployed would be forced to spend less – less groceries, less holidays, less dinners, less nights-out, less computers, less clothes, less everything – with such a huge number of people being laid-off this would equate to a significant loss in purchasing across the country.  Every shop or retail outlet, every restaurant or bar and every small business owner would be affected. The longer these public- sector employees are out of work the more likely this will impact (any redundancy payments will have been spent whilst the realities of long-term unemployment will set in). If the private sector fails to bounce back and absorb these employees, the more pronounced these losses would become. Big supermarkets and chains should weather the storm without a hitch but boutique shops, small businesses and the hospitality industry will be hit hard. Job cuts will result as employers try to cope with the fall in trade. Students may lose casual income and be forced to rely on Government loans, whilst many full-time workers will be left unemployed and forced onto benefits. With less being purchased, less will be produced, and employment in factories and other unskilled work will be cut. This will flow on through all industry, affecting everyone from wholesalers to retailers, tradesmen to truck drivers, and even farmers producing crops. 

The simple fact is that more people will be pushed on to benefits. Spending will decrease and the economy will sink – Income tax revenue will decline as people will be earning less, and there will be less income from VAT and other luxury item taxes.  This means less money in for the Government, more Benefits paid-out, and a steady increase in the National debt. Clearly cutting expenditure by cutting public-sector jobs is not going to provide the stimulus the economy needs, and this is without even considering the psychological problems that face a society with a burgeoning unemployment rate. 

The Government may see this as an opportunity to make the public sector run like a business – Individuals fearful of losing their jobs will be inclined to work longer hours under more stressful conditions. By the time the cuts are made, the hours of work and conditions will have become standard. Pay freezes will keep wages low, forcing the fewer employees left, to work longer, harder and for less pay. The effect on peoples lives – how they care for their families, their jobs satisfaction and their belief in their Government may all be severely impacted in a negative way, which in turn may have dreadful impacts for the long term future of the Government and its people.

The other option available to the Government is to encourage the economy too grow and reap the benefits of a booming economy – i.e. More people making more money and thus paying more tax which reduces the debt. This can work without the need for cutting expenditure. In fact one way to mange this would to increase public spending by increasing public works or building projects and/or providing cash stimulus packages to low to middle income earners within the country. This should have a two-pronged effect of encouraging spending and building confidence in the economy – both necessary to keep to economy buoyant.  This is a one-step back, two-steps forward approach with a short-term increase in Government debt to be followed by a long-term economic upsurge initiated by the spending of the hand-outs. The Australian Government led by Kevin Rudd provided a cash stimulus to many Australians at the beginning of 2009, which resulted in consumer confidence remaining high throughout the troubled time and Australia avoiding the recession. The advantage of this approach is that much of the money spent will come back to the Government in tax, and what doesn’t will be spent privately – injecting money and confidence in the economy and having the opposite effect of cutting expenditure – Shops will sell more goods, meaning more goods will be produced and more people will be employed across all industries. The economy should plough upward and onward. An increase in spending will increase wages, which in turn will provide the Government with higher tax revenue, and a reduction of social security costs. The increase in confidence associated with this, will buoy the people of the Nation and lead to a stronger long-term economy and happier, wealthier and much more included people. 

Beauty Good and Ugly Bad?

We live in a world where beauty is treasured and success assured for the beautiful. This is a world where glossy magazines are adorned with gorgeous people, selling everything from clothes to television sets. The same televisions conjure an imaginary world where all the people within it are unrealistically beautiful. Make-up is a huge industry that makes billions of dollars by hiding imperfections and exaggerating perfections. Cosmetic surgery is on the rise and people all over the world are spending grand sums of money having all sorts of enhancements. Pharmaceutical companies are spending as much time and money working on a cure for baldness as a cure for cancer. Nearly everyone is guilty of spending far too much time looking at themselves in the mirror, attempting to adjust their hair or their clothes to look the best they can. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are two of the biggest movie stars around. Is it a coincidence that they are also two of the most handsome? Is it a coincidence that Hollywood’s most sort-after couple is always its most beautiful? We want to be beautiful, we want to watch the beautiful, and we want hear all about them.

The advantages in life enjoyed by the attractive do not stop there. I have seen it first hand in the job market. If you pleasing to the eye it seems you’re pleasing to many employers – at times even at the expense of experience or qualifications. As Jerry Seinfeld once mused “You don’t see any handsome homeless” – sure being homeless doesn’t usually help in keeping-up ones appearance, but there is a message here – beautiful people do find life easier – they have more luck with jobs, making friends and attracting the opposite sex. Conversely, life for the ugly is hard, and filled with the constant battle to prove that ones looks are unrelated to ones personality or skills.

The question that now must be asked is: Why are we, as a society, biased towards the beautiful? There must be a reason why it has become so ingrained in our collective conscience that we are not even aware of the prejudice based on beauty that abounds.

The obvious answer is natural selection – based on a theory of genetic evolution or Darwinism. In other words, for the millions of years we roamed the caves, the advantages of beauty must have lead in some way to survival of the species. It is easy to accept this explanation with qualities such as intelligence or strength, which clearly have helped Man survive, but beauty seems to provide no benefit to our survival at all.

With genetic evolution discounted I decided to forget about things for a while. I picked up the Harry Potter book that lay nearby and settled in for a read. Shortly thereafter I came across a sentence where the author described the unpleasant character of Pansy Parkinson as “Pug-faced”. And I thought about the other characters in the book and for the most part – the bad, hurtful, nasty characters were physically ugly, whilst the good ones were not… and it suddenly dawned on me – beauty has been ingrained in our psyche since we were born. We have grown up listening to stories and fairy tales where the maiden is always beautiful and most often saved by her hero – a handsome prince. The evil forces that attempt to destroy this beauty or prevent the hero from succeeding, are always described as ugly, and thus we are subconsciously taught that beautiful is attached to good, whilst ugly is associated with evil.

Cinderella was beautiful and her ugly sisters speak for themselves. In the end Cinderella marries a handsome prince, and her ugly sisters remain nasty and mean, and yes ugly. Is it because they are ugly that they are mean? Sure their ugliness may have turned them this way abut we as the reader are never informed. All we know is that ugly is mean.

My personal favourite is The Ugly Duckling – The Ugly Duckling is ostracised by its flock because of its unfortunate appearance. One day it turns into a beautiful swan and then everyone wants to be its friend and success in life seems assured for this late bloomer. The moral for children is that if you’re ugly, you’re different, but if you turn beautiful then everything will be alright – what a horrible lesson. It would be a much better allegory if the duckling remained ugly yet became successful through the use of its brain or wit!

As I read on with Harry Potter, I’m left wondering is ugly to often used as a metaphor for bad or unpleasant? And if so what message is this implying? No wonder our society is so superficial; no wonder our lives are bombarded with the benefits of beauty – when we have spent our whole lives learning that the beautiful are good whilst the ugly are bad.

The Art of Becoming a Successful Artist

There are two ways to become a successful artist – The Hard Road and the Bypass. Now I’m going to take you through them and leave it to you to decide which route you’re going to take.

Lets concentrate on writing, as that is my area of interest. Let’s just say that I have wandered along the hard road for a few years and I’m now considering the bypass. Anyway, a successful writer is a writer that’s had a number of books published by a reputable publisher, or one book published that has sold well. There are two ways to achieve this end:

The Hard Road – This involves writing lots. Churning out new manuscripts every two years, sending them off to publishers, and being rejected by the same publishers over and over again.  The writer must continue to develop their craft by developing their style and improving with every book. This can be achieved by natural progression, reading, seeking advice and studying. One day everything falls into place – A publisher reads one of your manuscripts, and wants to publish. Suddenly, all the hours spent behind the computer, all the hours thinking and tinkering, editing and envisaging, seem worth it. Then your book is published and put on the shelves, and if your ideas meet with interest in the public arena, then maybe, just maybe, the book will sell wildly and you will be a successful writer.

The Bypass – This simply involves by-passing all of the above. In a world where fame and celebrity is at a premium and anyone with such qualities is a highly sort commodity; in a world where such fame and celebrity can be achieved without talent, then it is possible to become a successful writer simply by becoming famous. Gone are the days where one had to be a successful artist before one became famous. Now one can become famous and a then a successful art career will almost certainly follow.

There are a few ways to become famous and so launch your artistic career. Get yourself on Big brother and tell your housemates and the public that you are a writer – keep telling the world that you have a manuscript waiting to be published – surely, once you have been voted out of the house, there will be a mad-capped race for a book deal from all the big publishers. I don’t even think that they would read what you have written before they sign you to a deal.

In the same fashion, you could become a you-tube sensation, or my personal favourite – do something outlandish, illegal or a combination of both which lands you on the front page and into a life of celebrity. Once there – just mention your penchant for writing and your new book awaiting a publishing deal, and again everyone will be racing for your signature. The success of your book is assured, as your notoriety will lead to sales, and thus you will have achieved your aims of becoming a successful writer.

NB: This same formula can be extrapolated to all of the arts, and creativity in the method of becoming famous can only add to your mystique, charm and thus commerciality.

A New Tax

With the Government looking to cut expenditure and save money I thought it was time to suggest an increase in tax – not an increase in tax in the traditional sense, just a new higher tax bracket with a higher tax rate for those that fall into this bracket. It is simple – tax all earnings over £500,000 at a rate of 100%, well at least 90%. Surely no one can argue that half a million Pounds, Euros or almost any currency bar the Zimbabwe dollar is not enough to live on. Not when there are people in the UK living on less than £20,000 a year – thus anyone earning more than 25 times this amount is already living a life of luxury. One would struggle to spend this sort of money if one ate out at the cities top restaurants three times a day and travelled first class to far off places every weekend. In fact one could hire a personal chef, chauffeur and car, a live-in servant and a gardener and still have enough to buy a new suit each week.

People that are fortunate enough to earn this kind of money, have a great debt to the society that has allowed them to get there; A society that has given these people access to education, health and a free market economy; A society that has provided them with the means to produce and the freedom and safety to do so; A society that has allowed, even encouraged them, to reach this position of wealth – should be repaid handsomely. 

The main conjecture to this idea is a general fear that introducing this high tax bracket would discourage people from wanting to earn more. The rich would suddenly be skiving of work, failing to do their business duties, and ultimately bringing the whole economy to crushing standstill. This argument is based on the premise that people earning grand sums and bonuses (often in the business and banking world) do their jobs purely for monetary gain, and without huge incentives and bonuses they would walk off the job, stop caring, stop doing their best, and stop working with skill or desire. How sad! Doctors and fireman earn a salary. They cure the infirm and fight fires for their respective salaries. Generally, a bonus scheme has not been put in place to encourage them to treat more people or put fires out quicker. We assume they will work to the best of their abilities for their respective wages. Why then can the business elite not work hard for the betterment of their companies? And do so, simply for the more-than-adequate salaries that they receive.

All earnings up to half a million pounds will continue to be taxed at the standard rate and thus any people effected by this new tax will still be earning huge wages to do their jobs. They will work hard for their extensive wages and do their jobs well, unless they are greedy, and then who wants them working in the corporate sector when we strive for a more morally culpable and ethically sounds corporate sphere (especially after the traumas of recent years).

There is no way anyone can say that half a million pounds is not enough remuneration for any work being performed across the world. Surely then it is time that the society that gave this opportunity of wealth was repaid with a greater contribution of tax. I would say every dollar over half a million, but I don’t want to sound too pushy and we know the business types need incentives to do any work at all so best keep it at 90%, and then maybe we can cut the deficit and start working on building a society that everyone wants to be part of; a utopia where Government services are of the highest level, and everyone has access to the best education and health available.