Writing about Music is like Dancing about Architecture

    How do we communicate through music?  Music is a deep and rich form of expression.  It can be emotive and compelling, it can carry profound meaning, and it crosses cultural and social differences.  You could say it's a universal language.  Check out this YouTube clip of a street performer in Croatia.  I have no idea what this song it about, but it doesn't matter!  I can relate to the music, the melody, the rhythm, and the atmosphere - and just enjoy it.

    So, music is almost limitless in its ability to reach everyone. . . right?  What about deaf people?  How could they possibly listen to music?  Surely there would be no point.  Ahh, I hear you say.  What about music videos?  The addition of a visual expression to the music brings it to life even for the profoundly deaf.  Subtitles and sign language make sure that the meaning is expressed as well.  Sean Forbes is a deaf hip-hop artist who does a great job making his material accessible to the deaf community.  His song "Let's Mambo" is below.

We hear music, and we can also see it.  But what does it mean to listen to music?  It is possible to use our senses beyond sight and hearing to truly listen.  Evelyn Glennie is a full time professional percussionist performing at an international level.  She has been completely deaf since the age of 12.  She obviously doesn't rely of hearing to play music, but she doesn't rely on sight either.  She feels the music through parts of her body other than her ears.  She often performs barefoot so she can feel the music through her feet!  She can judge the pitch of a note played on a kettle drum or timpani, just through feeling the vibrations in the sticks, and can also experience the tone, or colour, of a sound in much the same way.  Evelyn talks about how she "listens" to music in this clip below.  Her aim is to "teach the world to listen."  Enjoy.

So you WANNA-BEn arrested...

A stunt at Auckland airport involving members of the crew of TV3 comedy show Wanna-Ben made media headlines across the nation last week. An individual dressed in a pilot's uniform attempted to gain access to a secure area at the airport. To their credit, security staff at the airport were on their game and the impostor was turned away. To date a total of six have been arrested in connection with the stunt.

I watched Wanna-Ben on TV last Saturday night. It was on just before the rugby world cup match (NZ vs France). The plot of this particular episode cast 'Ben' as an aspiring All Black, determined to make the world cup squad. His training program consisted of a series of spoof skits such as an interview with Len Brown on a train (training) and ambushing various NZ media personalities with a group hug from a rugby team (the media scrum).

At the completion of his training, Wanna-Ben presents his C.V to All Black coach Graham Henry then expectantly waits for the world cup squad to be announced. When he doesn't make the team, the next scene shows Wanna-Ben at the beach writing in the sand in an obvious take-off of the depression ad campaign that has screened recently. As the credits roll at the end of the show, the camera pulls back to a wide-angle shot which reveals the words in the sand. "F*#K YOU GRAHAM."

Too far Wanna-Ben.  The episode was quite entertaining for the most part, then it took a huge dive.  The final sequence was just bad taste.  There are some well defined taboos in comedy - just ask Raybon Kan.  The Kiwi comedian copped huge flak from the Jewish community recently for his stand-up routine which included a joke about how the Nazi's should be running Auckland's transport system as they were good at loading people onto trains.

Poking fun at people suffering from depression is on the list of 'things that probably aren't a good idea'.  After the recent hoax at the airport I think we can add 'impersonating a pilot' to that list.  

The pranksters are appearing in court next month facing a possible $10,000 fine or one year in prison. What do you think?  Should the judge throw the book at them or let them off easy?  

London Riots

Hello. I found an interesting blog on the London riots at rebelgriot entitled “Why are we leaving it to our children to bring accountability to the police and redistribute wealth?” The author makes some interesting points and certainly busted through my daily quota for a conspiracy theory. He claims that the youth of London are simply following the example set by the rest of society and “compared to their role models, the vast majority of the rioters have behaved impeccably.” I don't think I would describe the rioters behaviour as impeccable but I do agree that our role models are far from perfect. Our culture is consumed by consumerism, (Zygmunt Bauman makes this point rather well in this article) and accountability has gone out of fashion – or is it that as individuals we are only accountable to ourselves?

Here in New Zealand, things aren't always as rosy as they seem, yet as apathy reigns supreme it will be a cold day in hell before rioting breaks out in the streets. In 2009 we had a nationwide referendum on the merits of the recently introduced anti-smacking legislation. Despite an overwhelming 87% of voters opposed to the bill, our current government has done nothing. The voice-of-the-people becomes diluted and ineffective through the very system that claims to encourage it. What then should we do to fight injustice? This question is not easy or straight forward to answer.

Mark Duggan's death seemed to have served as a catalyst for a volatile generation who have everything but a cause. Through a lack of insight and creativity, protest turned to rioting. I can't agree with rebelgriot in saying that the looting was 'wealth redistribution'. The looters were mostly stealing electronic goods and novelty items—not essentials.

I hope this incident serves as a wakeup call. The issues at stake are varied, complex, and valid. Tony Blair is hardly going to go on TV and say, “Well, now that you've burnt down half of London we'll treat you with respect and fairness, put an end to poverty, racism, corruption, and discrimination.” Instead, the authorities are taking a hard line and handing out tough sentences to the perpetrators. Lets hope they deal with the cause, not just the consequences. I don't condone the actions of the rioters and I don't think they can rightly claim victory for their cause. Many were merely opportunists who took advantage of the situation for personal gain because they thought they could get away with it. Is that really so different from the way we all act?

New plans for old churches

Christchurch Anglican Cathedral

Christchurch. The garden city endowed with inspiring architecture and majestic structures.  Awe inspiring steeples and stained glass cathedrals.

Many of these beautiful, iconic church buildings now lay in ruins.  Since the recent earthquakes, they are being condemned and demolished - leaving the faithful standing on vacant lots,  disillusioned, yet unshaken in their faith and resolve.

Is this their darkest hour or their greatest opportunity?

Some would have us question the place of church in modern society.  Martin Van Beynen's provocative article entitled 'Save space, just one church should cover it' is an example of this.  However, Christianity and traditional churches are an important and significant part of Christchurch's history for many people.

Christ Church Oxford

The city of Christchurch was born in 1856 making it the oldest established city in New Zealand.  It was named after Christ Church, Oxford - An educational institute and cathedral in England.  This was to be the model for the new settlement in Canterbury.  Graduate John Robert Godley, suggested the name for the city which was approved at the first ever meeting of the Canterbury Association.

Now, 155 years later the churches in Christchurch are presented with a unique opportunity.  They have the space and the resources to build new and creative structures that can support Christchurch now and into the future.  Structures that add value and depth to the whole community as well as providing a "home base" for believers.  The challenge in 2011 for Christchurch is to celebrate and honor it's rich heritage, yet rebuild in such a way that is relevant for an ever changing population.

Charles de Lint asks, "Why did men worship in Churches, locking themselves away in the dark, when the world lay beyond its door in all its real glory?"  

Imagine churches with doors wide open.  Not to worship the glory of creation (which pales in comparison to the glory of the Creator) but to unite the city and its people in a living faith that reaches the deepest needs and feeds the souls of humankind.

It might be a far off dream.  It might never happen...but what's the alternative?

The Upside Down Church?

Inflatable Church?

Church of Charles Darwin?

Whatever Christchurch does with its buildings, the Church will live on regardless.  Bridget Willard sums it up perfectly with this quote.


“Church isn’t where you meet. Church isn’t a building. Church is what you do. Church is who you are. Church is the human outworking of the person of Jesus Christ. Let’s not go to Church, let’s be the Church.” Bridget Willard

Norway attacks - Christian extremist?

Like it or not, Anders Behring Breivik is the new face of Christian extremism.

If you don't believe me then just type the words "Christian extremist" into google images and you'll get dozens of results depicting the infamous 32 year old Norwegian.

It has been nearly two weeks since the self proclaimed Christian Knight Templar committed his terrible crime in Norway.  His carefully planned attacks took the lives of at least 77 people, and left his country and the rest of the world stunned.

In the aftermath many are trying to understand what drove this man to his actions.  Could he be mentally insane?  The cold and callous way in which he carried out the attack and the fact that he shows no remorse suggests that this may be the case - and will likely be the basis for his legal defense.  However, Dr Tarjei Rygnestad, the head of Norway’s Board of Forensic Medicine, says it is "unlikely that Breivik would be declared legally insane because his attacks were so minutely planned and executed."

The media has labeled Breivik a Christian extremist.  This has sparked heated debate across the board.  Christians, understandably, don't want to be identified with a fanatical mass murderer.  Muslims think that since Muslim extremists have somewhat tarnished the reputation of the Islamic faith why shouldn't Christianity be in the same boat?  Those with a political bent think it's a move by the left wing politicians and media to undermine Christian tradition and push their social agenda.

Breivik, in his 1500 page manifesto which he distributed just hours before the attacks, makes a distinction between Cultural Christians and Religious Christians.  According to him a Religious Christian is someone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.  A Cultural Christian can be someone who "believes in Christianity as a cultural, social identity and moral platform"  Breivik considers himself a cultural Christian and says "if there is a God, I will be allowed to enter heaven as all the martyrs for the Church in the past".  

So apparently, to be a cultural Christian you don't need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and you don't even need to believe in God!  Christianity can be used as a moral platform and a social identity - but only when it's convenient.  It is nice to have those lovely Christian traditions like Christmas, Easter, weddings, etc... but belief in God is optional?