Skip to main content

Day: 29 September 2014

Top 5 Songs… to hear at Warehouse Project 2014 season

1. Ricardo Villalobos – Bosch

The Chilean’s appearance on 1st November is surely one of the highlights of the whole season. This 11 minute epic is just 1 of many masterpieces in his record catalogue.

2. KiNK – Dama

If KiNK plays cuts like this one from his new album then I have no doubt that his set will be mind-blowing. An eerie, creepy stomper that builds into a pummelling climax.

3. Jon Hopkins – Open Eye Signal

Spiky synths and crashing percussion underpin this intense and hypnotic track, sure to send all Store Street revellers into a frenzy.

4. The Knife – We Share Our Mother’s Health

As The Knife prepare to call it a day, Warehouse Project are putting on one of their final ever shows, this one’s at the Manchester Academy. Don’t miss out on seeing the experimentalist siblings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tHEbUElHvU

5. A$AP Rocky – Fashion Killa

New York hip hop collective A$AP Mob hit Store Street on 28th October. Rocky killed it at Parklife in the summer, expect the same underneath Piccadilly.

Go here for further details and tickets

Manchester Metamorphosis

University is where all essential life skills are developed: how to cook, how to do your own laundry, how to make life extremely awkward by drunkenly romancing your neighbour (oops). Slowly but surely we’ve all grasped that the real lessons are taught outside of the lecture hall. By the end of Freshers’ week, one never feels the same as they did when they first arrived; away from the safety of home, we find ourselves constantly evolving.  Being a student in such a fashionable city as Manchester means image is one major area of said evolution. The style of the city is so infectious; it doesn’t take long for a new you to take shape. You find yourself shaking off that well groomed style so beloved back home and looking more unkempt by the day.

The unique uniform of spice girl meets hipster meets magic bus lady has a power over us all.  As a fresh faced fresher, I coveted all things glam – Lipsy dresses, stilettos, fake eyelashes, GHDs and anything else OTT. Three years later I’m glad to say I have embraced the Fallowfield way of life and no longer take a week to get ready for a night out. For me the change was gradual over my first year but a girl in my halls took only a week before she was so unrecognisable we thought a tramp had broken into our block. I can already see it happening to this year’s freshers: the piercings, the smudged make-up and the beginnings of dreadlocks. As for the guys, those brand new Jack Wills polo shirts will soon be replaced by vintage football shirts to compliment your image as an up and coming DJ.

This isn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last, that your style changes. It’s important to hold on to your own personal trademarks, style should develop not disappear- don’t lose the ability to think for yourself. While my style has changed drastically since moving to Manchester, you won’t find me in the ket-head uniform of vintage Adidas sweater, leggings and Air Max trainers. I know what works for me, and that just doesn’t. Nonetheless, one should always be open to new fashions; change can be for the better.  Of course, not everyone is quite as evolved just yet; the more serious among us would say that the grace period is over and anything that makes you look like you put effort in is sacrilege. Consider this a warning, don’t get left behind.

Club: Selective Hearing presents Tessela b2b Pariah b2b Kowton

20th September

Joshua Brooks

8.5/10

Even with the best DJs, playing back-to-back can often be a hindrance rather than an improvement. The singular brilliance of the selector can be lost when sharing the decks in a mismatched set that doesn’t quite flow as well as one they would play alone. Selective Hearing certainly know what they’re doing bookings wise however, and tonight there are no such issues.

All three DJs are well versed in playing collaboratively: Pariah in Karenn; Kowton with Livity Sound; and Tessela alongside his brother Truss in TR\ER. This undoubtedly had an impact upon the effortlessness with which they rotated to produce an adeptly crafted set. Their cohesion is exemplified by Kowton introducing an African theme with the dropping of Delroy Edwards’s xylophone laden ‘Bells’, followed by Tessela and Pariah unleashing Midland’s Autonomous Africa Vol. 3 offering ‘Safi’ and Daphni’s afro-beat underpinned ‘Pairs’.

At around 2am there’s a noticeable shift to more intense sounds as the three DJs collectively up the ante. This bridge is expertly gapped with the dropping of Truss’s ‘Redbrook’, which builds and builds with atmospheric synths accented with acidic stabs.

Tessela then sends the room into a frenzy mixing his relentlessly percussive ‘Gateway’ into Gesloten Cirkel’s ‘Twisted Balloon’. Respite from the fierce heat generated in the Joshua Brooks basement is provided only by the dripping of condensed cold sweat from the ceiling. The night continues with no holds barred from this point; the airing of disorientatingly brilliant Night Slugs/Fade To Mind anthem ‘Icy Lake’ sounds especially intoxicating on the clubs’ newly installed Void sound system.

Despite the trio continuing well past their 4am curfew, the crowd are still desperate for more with chants of “One more tune!” ringing out after Kowton spins his Linear Mix of Peverelist’s ‘Roll With The Punches’ to close the night.

Tonight proves the Void sound system in Joshua Brooks was worth the hype, and that the club is a fine new home for all things Selective Hearing.

The Moral Responsibility of Film

Last year’s Academy screenings saw the ‘ludes and lewdness of Martin Scorsese’s Wolf of Wall Street maligned by those perched on the high horse, with one screenwriter/moral crusader (who presumably wasn’t nominated) reportedly hounding Scorsese and Leo with a righteous “shame on you—disgusting!” It’s perfectly understandable why Wolf’s three hours of dwarf parading, coke sniffing and gleeful embezzling didn’t prove a PTA favourite, but the film’s problems lie in its bloat rather than belligerence.

Assuming for a second that art may have moral responsibility, viewers outraged by Wolf’s unabashed debauchery miss the point that portrayal of amorality is not the same as endorsement. Human beings are riddled with flaws far beyond our life lessons, and the most compelling works explore this without compromise. I refuse to accept there’s a soul alive dense enough to believe that Jonah Hill’s invitation to “smoke crack with me bro,” extends to the audience.

I know several people who were disappointed that “nothing bad happened” to Belfort in the end. But why should it? We’re conditioned to expect justice when absolute bastards massacre a wedding party or push Mufasa to his death, but comeuppance as an audience crutch quashes the possibilities of daring storytelling. Wolf’s refusal to pander to overly moralistic viewers by having Belfort ill-fittingly discover the power of charity or imprisoned for life is refreshing and authentic. After all, the real Jordan Belfort is making $30000 per motivational speech, and not sat at home retweeting ‘inspirational’ quotes about how money is the root of all evil.

Wolf’s lack of moral message might be disconcerting to some, but it stands as preferable to the offensive inoffensiveness of Hollywood sentimentality. Case in point: Forrest Gump, a glorification of stupidity where flirting with counterculture will give you AIDS, but all-American, unquestioning patriotism will shower you with rewards and even the willpower to break out of physical disability! All of this is wrapped up in the empty “life is like a box of chocolates” analogy, in case you don’t already have anaemia.

The argument that film should uphold moral responsibility constrains the depth of stories able to be told. It fails to account for the fact that it’s near impossible to challenge morally questionable issues without actually showing them and that the vast majority have no desire to sell their Trainspotting posters for skag and can distinguish between interesting fiction and acceptable real-world behaviour.

Fashion Revolution: The 90s

We all know how it works, trends come, trends go and the big fashion Ferris wheel keeps turning. Whether its the 60s, 70s or the less attractive 80s, the industry loves nothing more than looking back to move forward. A phenomenon I’m less familiar with however is to experience a vogue for an era I was actually alive in.

But back in late 2011 the Manchester’s students began canoodling with crop tops, in 2012 they were spotted behind the bike sheds with scrunchies and by 2013 they had embarked on a full blown love affair with all things 90s. Though kimonos and chokers have long since disappeared off the catwalks, the city is still clinging on to its kicks and staying firmly zipped into its ‘Mom’ jeans.

Surely sustained by Manchester’s grungy sensibilities, the revival of this particular decade’s influence has outlasted all expectations. Amongst the redbrick and under the constant wet weather, there’s something about 90s style that just seems to suit Manchester. So nose rings at the ready and sneaker-covered foot firmly forward, this particular decade trend isn’t going anywhere.

Does social media connect people?

Yes

David Brierley

When my parents went to university, their most profound memory of the first few months was the general awkwardness of meeting new people. I’m sure this is a familiar feeling to those reading this now—those moments when you have forgotten someone’s name or otherwise found yourself in some kind of unpleasant social predicament.

Yet the difference between my experience and that of my parents was that nobody would have abruptly exclaimed, “Oh, you’re that guy from Facebook” upon first seeing them.

Whilst perhaps, my frequenting of Mark Zuckerberg’s empire was not the best thing to be known for, the fact that I was able to use it to find many of the people I’m now living with and gather information I could not have otherwise found was a major advantage.

This information I was then able to pass onto others, thus earning the moniker of “that Facebook guy.” Because of this, before I even came to the university, I already felt familiar with the people and the feel of the city.

Socialising is part of the human condition. There is a reason why innumerable studies reach the conclusion that isolation is detrimental to health— humans are meant to work and exist together, in social groups. From the development of trading to the development of twitter, we are a species that finds great fulfilment interacting with our peers.

The negative facets that arise with social media are not products of themselves but products of our in society. If you make offensive comments in a group of ten people, it is possible then that one person will take offence. If you did so in an office of a hundred, there is likely a group of people who will be alienated. When you make that comment on a global platform, the fallout could be huge.

When you scale up the size of an audience, the impact of a singular comment is scaled accordingly. When people take issue with the longevity of mistakes made on the Internet it is naivety towards this fact.

I would never presume to argue that Facebook or Twitter are indicative of real life, they are entirely different platforms. They are a means to find people with whom you share particular interests, and keep up to date and maintain friendships that distance would otherwise damage.

When I meet people online, it is my intention to meet them in person as soon as possible, to get to know them. If everyone thought social media and real life were mutually exclusive then this would not occur, everyone would be content to interact from behind a screen. But they are not. Social media is a useful extension of social interaction, not a damaging replacement.

This suggests that social media, like all social situations, be treated with care and consideration with regard to your impact. It also implies that through your ability to connect on such a global scale, social media truly does connect people. When you look at social media and see the living, instant reactions to events and statements, people and photos, you cannot turn round and say it is not a brilliant leap forward towards a more integrated and connected society.

No, social media is not real life, but it should not be criticized for or conceived as a replacement for it. When handled properly, and treated with respect as to the size of the audience your voice can reach, social media is innately a very powerful tool. When the fallout is not considered, social media becomes very detrimental—but that is not a product of its own design, it is a product of human flaw. It’s all a matter of scale and appreciating the onus is on you to use the tools given to you responsibly.

 

No

Samuel Gilmore

Initially, what I’m going to argue may sound pretty absurd; social media, contrary to what you may think, doesn’t connect people. You may think that talking to friends on Facebook located around the world, watching everyone’s highlights from last night on Snapchat or using Twitter to see the every passing thought of those you follow is great.

But let me tell you, that is not living. It is a skewed distortion of it. In fact, I’d go as far as to say, when used exclusively without any real life basis for contact with others, social media is alienating.

Let me first disagree with the terms of the idea that social media connects people. I have no issues with the essence of what social media provides— a tool to create and to share content. What I do have an issue with is the notion that it connects people.

The meaning of these words has been slowly morphed through the use of modern technology into a notion that so loosely represents its original meaning; the whole sense of establishing and keeping friends via social media is flawed.

People don’t usually do things with the sole intention of connecting with others in the physical world. When you go to a football match, you do so out of a shared interest in the sport, not only to socialise with your friends. People, in real life, generally meet up to do the things that interest them.

The rare occasion in which you do consciously connect is a networking event. This example clearly explains the converse; you don’t hang out with your friends to connect in the way that you would go to a careers fair or open day. One is for the purpose of making connections, the other is to enjoy your connections that you have with your friends by way of shared interest or to have fun.

The impact of social media is that we now intentionally treat our friends, when online, as potential nodes in our network—a chance to increase our exposure instead of enjoying the relationship as simply a friendship.

Out of this common foundation of shared pursuits, the spontaneity of human interaction prompts amazing things; we become friends, partners, and colleagues. This is how it is we make meaningful friendships; you experience life with one another and from this your bond blooms.

By connecting in a friendship without any prior common interests, values or experiences, you can make the whole deal inauthentic. It’s friendship-lite, without all the hassle of actually living the entire experience. Why bother reminiscing about that one amazing night out, when you can just caption: “Lol,” on a horrendous photo of your mate on Facebook.

I feel that this insistence on connecting with others is damaging to actually making friends with others. It puts so much pressure on people to see making friends as a pursuit in and of itself, rather than experiencing life, and meeting like-minded people through that.

I also take issue with the word ‘people’. I know for myself that when I go online, my online persona is totally different to my real life one. I tell jokes in different ways, I’m eager to make myself look like I’m always having a good time. I, like every user on social media, want to be seen as interesting.

Not only do I want to appear like I am interesting, but I also want to engage in sly self-congratulation; I want my friends to like, comment on, and share how interesting I am.

The damaging pressure inherent in social media is the need to be constantly outpouring ones’ inner most thoughts, from the incredibly intimate to the incredibly mundane. People, when they are placed under scrutiny by everyone else, change from who they essentially are.

As such, when people ‘connect’ over social media, it’s not actually two people connecting, but two representations of people, two distortions of themselves. In this way, no ‘connection’ is actually being achieved, but merely a comparing of notes to see if we’re all as bloody interesting as everyone else.

This urgency to appear to be wonderful is bad for people. It’s actually extremely alienating. I know for myself, that I can get massive fear of missing out syndrome when scrolling down my Facebook feed, even though in fact I remind myself that we are all going through the motions of everyday living; but that isn’t interesting to share with one another and so the highlights of our summers’ happen to be the only thing we see.

Social media, when used appropriately, bearing in mind that which I have outlined already, can be a good way to maintain friends; but it must be stressed that social media is a means to friendship and not an end.

People make things happen, not social media. Use Facebook to meet up for a night out, Twitter to start a revolution and so on, just do not let yourself be caught in the mantra that everything you have to do has to be popular; do what interests, and friends will soon follow. Social media doesn’t connect people; people connect with people.

The Instagram Effect

Flashing lights, perfectly messy hair, not a worry in the world—everyone on your Facebook newsfeed seems to have had the time of their lives last night. You decide that you need to get out of your tiny new room and actually try to make friends; you’re going out tonight.

You come up with the best effortless-looking outfit you can find and make your way into what you expect to be a picture-perfect night. Except, that’s all it is: picture-perfect. The dance floor is crowded, you’ve spent half the night waiting for that one friend who keeps wandering off, you’re trying to fight the urge to go to the bathroom—where was all this on Instagram?

You would expect social media sites to be the perfect way to keep up with friends and family from all over the world, especially if you’ve recently all gone off to university.

Think of Snapchat; it gives you the ability to update your friends instantly. What we forget is that Snapchat was actually made in order to show your contacts a maximum of ten seconds of your otherwise long and perhaps rather boring day. Sadly, it’s that tiny window of time that sets our expectations so high.

As great and innovative as social media is, one of its by-products is that it augments events, places, and people, often casting negative side effects on the innocent Internet surfer. As insignificant as it may seem, this glorification will eventually lead to disappointment after disappointment, making one think that it’s their own fault they’re not having as much fun as they suspect others do.

Take porn for example—not everyone has effortlessly bronze skin or the perfect body for these impossible-looking moves. However, it is very easy for one to fall into the trap of believing that it’s their own fault they’re not picture-perfect.

There are endless articles and web-posts complaining about how advertisements and commercials Photoshop and edit models to a degree that alters the image of beauty. However, the Instagram effect is different in the sense that it is usually not done on purpose, but is instead a side effect of our beloved social media.

As everything else, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and similar websites will have their positives and their negatives—and this is one we may just have to silently deal with.

Facebook may soon promote extremism

Despite the recent controversy over Facebook’s manipulation of the information displayed on our newsfeeds, the site’s engineers are giving us justification for another tweaking of the system. Concern has been raised over Facebook engaging in the creation of fake statuses and manipulation of posts to see how users’ moods could be affected, yet the site continues with its intention to organise our data in new ways to improve our social media experience.

Erich Owens and David Vickery blogged their reasons for these new changes, explaining that the feedback they have received from users suggests some posts are only relevant at certain times. For instance if it’s Monday evening and you’re posting your opinion about the latest on Coronation Street, then it would be helpful if similar posts were displayed on the same evening as opposed to three days later when you have moved onto posting about something more current.

In a nutshell, Facebook intend to show you more recent and time-popular data than what you see presently, which is predominantly determined by its popularity in terms of likes.

One of the side effects of this manipulation is that breaking news stories will apparently appear more frequently on our news feeds. The engineers commented that Facebook will give “priority to breaking news so you can immediately know what your friends or favourite pages are saying about the stories of the day”.

At first glance, this appears like a good idea. Considering the vast amounts of time people spend on Facebook, surely it would be constructive for individuals to be reading up on current affairs and issues at the forefront of the media.

This, however, is dangerous. Facebook is already a site where individuals feel as if they have to write statuses in order to please and to impress others. We are obsessed with likes and shares, so much so that we often refrain from posting our opinions on certain topics. We act as if the world would come to a standstill, should we end up with zero likes, or worse a wall full of criticism and debate.

Seeing political opinions on current issues by friends may have the negative effect of making users more inclined to take particular standpoints. By no means is it wrong to be influenced by other people, and by no means am I suggesting that typical mediums for receiving the news are unbiased and equivocal.

However, a journalist is bound not only by journalistic integrity, but also by law to not make false claims or lie outright. Whilst it can be argued that certain types of journalism miss the mark of integrity by a long shot, they are all open to public scrutiny; your Facebook status, however, is not.

It isn’t just an issue that our statuses don’t have to be truthful—legally speaking they do in fact have to avoid libel. Yet, people make questionable claims about homosexuality, race, religion, immigration, and other topics all the time. Not only will their statuses be seen more often, but their statuses will have a wider range; they will even be promoted by Facebook’s algorithm.

In an age where individuals are already pressured over what to post and what not to post on Facebook, a shift in Facebook’s algorithm to add breaking news to the equation could have a detrimental effect of creating a very loud generation with uninformed opinions.

Surely it’s better to read an article by a well-informed journalist who has experience and knowledge on a certain topic after doing extensive research, as opposed to a hormonal teenager seeking acceptance amongst their peers.

Moreover, it is merely human nature to surround ourselves by like-minded people. This presents an issue whereby we only see the same opinion repeated in subtly different ways. Opposing opinions would become a rarity, and when seen a cause for confrontation.

On the other hand, such confrontation could encourage debate and argument about contentious views. In actuality, however, it may only result in the self-validation of people with a particular viewpoint. The popular viewpoints will beget more likes as the unpopular opinions, regardless of their validity, will be skimmed over as the eye naturally gravitates to the liked posts.

Our social networks hugely contribute to our opinions and views.  To permit unchecked and unscrutinised opinions to take precedence merely because of their actuality is problematic for well-balanced opinions.

Facebook is a social media giant and dominates its competitors, though its number of users has recently fallen.  Facebook’s recent engagement in unauthorised emotional manipulation makes me wary that they want further control over what we see on our newsfeeds—all opinions, even the most abhorrently hateful, will be denoted as important merely because they discuss a current point of contention.

I just hope people are able to consider different points of view on current issues from a variety of different sources before posting their opinions on Facebook and influencing their network of friends.