I’ve had a lot of uni work over the past couple of weeks and as a result, I’ve
been heavily reliant on Pink Floyd to help me concentrate. One of the things that’s really struck me is how politically outspoken their music is compared to what’s around right now. I find this particularly puzzling given that we’re in the midst of one of the longest and deepest recessions for several generations.
Traditionally, recessions coincide with a rise in politicised mainstream music. Some artists use their music to overtly express their political views. Others become social commentators, using music to moan about the state of society. Some examples below show this well-established link.
Mid-1970s: Here you not only had bands like Pink Floyd bemoaning the socio-economic state of the country, but you also had the rise of anti-establishment punk rock with the likes of the Sex Pistols and The Clash.
Early 1980s: Bands emerged in the early Thatcher years who were critical of the state of society. You think of The Smiths, The Jam, and UB40 for example.
Early 1990s: Much of the work by the Manic Street Preachers strongly advocate leftist ideas, Oasis’ Definitely Maybe talks of the troubles facing young adults at the time, plus Public Enemy became popular this side of the pond.
Clearly then, recessions tend to help produce popular politicised music. The current recession though seems to be the exception. The biggest British musicians of recent times have been the likes of Coldplay, Adele, Amy Winehouse, and Take That. All have seen commercial and critical success yet they’ve tended to write more about personal turmoil and love rather than commenting on society more generally.
I’m not saying the lack of politicised music is inherently bad. Certainly it hasn’t stopped me enjoying recently released music. It’s just interesting that this recession hasn’t seen much political music. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and she suggested that Rupert Murdoch and Simon Cowell might be to blame for this. I’m not entirely convinced that Murdoch is relevant here but there’s definitely some mileage with the Cowell argument. With X Factor, people of all backgrounds may now simply see music as a way of quickly becoming famous and not some form of artistic expression. X Factor’s also flooded the music industry with artists producing safe and chart-happy songs that sell by the bucket load. As a result, there’s less space for more left-field music that may be more controversial.
Given how bad this recession has been, I’m surprised that there’s hardly any prominent politicised music around right now. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, unless Little Mix’s forthcoming album decides to break all the normal X Factor rules...
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Surely Hope Powell's worth considering for the vacant England job?
It’s that time again. England are looking for a new manager so cue the usual hysteria about who should be leading the national team. Collectively, it seems like we want an experienced, respected, English coach who is known to motivate players and has a proven track record for success. As ever, at first glance there doesn’t appear to be anyone who meets all these criteria (the only piece of silverware that Harry Redknapp has won is one FA Cup). However, the one manager who most closely fits the bill has barely been mentioned – Hope Powell!
I’m aware that some of you won’t know who I’m talking about here. Hope Powell has been the manager of the England Women’s team since 1998 and will also be coaching Team GB’s Women’s Football Team at London 2012. You might now think that I’m just joking around when I suggest that Powell should also be considered for the vacant post. Initially this might have been the case but given her experience and track record, I’m convinced that she has an equal right to be talked about in relation to the job as managers like Redknapp, Hiddink, Pearce and Mourinho. Here are a few reasons why:
Englishness: Absurdly, the media and football following public have decided that the next England manager has to be English. Redknapp’s passion for England has won him many supporters but Hope Powell’s record is equally noteworthy. Capped 66 times by England (with 35 goals), vice-captain for country, and England manager for nearly 15 years. Surely this underlines her commitment to her country?
Reputation and respect: Again, the football world wants a figure in charge that is widely respected within the game and therefore can command the authority of players and staff. Hope Powell’s credentials speak for themselves. OBE, CBE, inducted into the English Football Hall of Fame, and the first woman to be awarded the UEFA Pro Licence (which is more than many other English managers hold). Clearly this is manager that is hugely respected within the wider footballing community.
Pre-existing FA relationship: Stuart Pearce has been linked with the job primarily as he’s already in the FA coaching set up and would therefore be a steady appointment from within. But, note that Hope Powell’s been in the FA set up for far longer…
International experience: Advocates of Guus Hiddink and Roy Hodgson point to their prior experience of managing international football. Yet Powell also has this in abundance. She’s led England to the quarter-finals of the 2005 Euros and the 2007 World Cup, and the final of the 2009 Euros.
Coaching achievements: Although Powell’s achievements above are clearly notable, some will say that she should not be considered as she’s not won any silverware. But neither has Guus Hiddink at international level. Plus Harry Redknapp’s only silverware is one FA Cup so Hope Powell’s records hardly fares too badly in comparison.
Bringing through youth: Again, Harry Redknapp’s fans will point to the number of young players that he developed at both West Ham and Spurs, a vital quality for an England manager. However, it’s also worth noting that alongside her senior level duties, Hope Powell oversees the England Women’s set up from Under 15s to Under 21s, showing that she’s equally able to bring through the next generation of England players.
Now I appreciate that there’s no chance that Hope Powell will be talked about in relation to the vacant England post. Nonetheless, this article has revealed two things. Firstly, the England job goes to whoever’s fashionable at the time, not to the person who’s necessarily most qualified. Otherwise, why isn’t Hope Powell being considered in the same way as Harry Redknapp?
Secondly, how is it that such an experienced and decorated manager has not been remotely touted with the major manager roles in English football? In 2011, Chelsea appointed an inexperienced AVB with minimal track record as manager yet Hope Powell, a very successful and widely respected manager did not even get a look in. Makes you wonder what more she will have to achieve before the big names come calling.
I’m aware that some of you won’t know who I’m talking about here. Hope Powell has been the manager of the England Women’s team since 1998 and will also be coaching Team GB’s Women’s Football Team at London 2012. You might now think that I’m just joking around when I suggest that Powell should also be considered for the vacant post. Initially this might have been the case but given her experience and track record, I’m convinced that she has an equal right to be talked about in relation to the job as managers like Redknapp, Hiddink, Pearce and Mourinho. Here are a few reasons why:
Englishness: Absurdly, the media and football following public have decided that the next England manager has to be English. Redknapp’s passion for England has won him many supporters but Hope Powell’s record is equally noteworthy. Capped 66 times by England (with 35 goals), vice-captain for country, and England manager for nearly 15 years. Surely this underlines her commitment to her country?
Reputation and respect: Again, the football world wants a figure in charge that is widely respected within the game and therefore can command the authority of players and staff. Hope Powell’s credentials speak for themselves. OBE, CBE, inducted into the English Football Hall of Fame, and the first woman to be awarded the UEFA Pro Licence (which is more than many other English managers hold). Clearly this is manager that is hugely respected within the wider footballing community.
Pre-existing FA relationship: Stuart Pearce has been linked with the job primarily as he’s already in the FA coaching set up and would therefore be a steady appointment from within. But, note that Hope Powell’s been in the FA set up for far longer…
International experience: Advocates of Guus Hiddink and Roy Hodgson point to their prior experience of managing international football. Yet Powell also has this in abundance. She’s led England to the quarter-finals of the 2005 Euros and the 2007 World Cup, and the final of the 2009 Euros.
Coaching achievements: Although Powell’s achievements above are clearly notable, some will say that she should not be considered as she’s not won any silverware. But neither has Guus Hiddink at international level. Plus Harry Redknapp’s only silverware is one FA Cup so Hope Powell’s records hardly fares too badly in comparison.
Bringing through youth: Again, Harry Redknapp’s fans will point to the number of young players that he developed at both West Ham and Spurs, a vital quality for an England manager. However, it’s also worth noting that alongside her senior level duties, Hope Powell oversees the England Women’s set up from Under 15s to Under 21s, showing that she’s equally able to bring through the next generation of England players.
Now I appreciate that there’s no chance that Hope Powell will be talked about in relation to the vacant England post. Nonetheless, this article has revealed two things. Firstly, the England job goes to whoever’s fashionable at the time, not to the person who’s necessarily most qualified. Otherwise, why isn’t Hope Powell being considered in the same way as Harry Redknapp?
Secondly, how is it that such an experienced and decorated manager has not been remotely touted with the major manager roles in English football? In 2011, Chelsea appointed an inexperienced AVB with minimal track record as manager yet Hope Powell, a very successful and widely respected manager did not even get a look in. Makes you wonder what more she will have to achieve before the big names come calling.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Why the FA's decision on John Terry is nonsensical
So, John Terry was back in the news again this weekend, this time being stripped of the England captaincy ahead of his trial for allegedly racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. Reading between the lines of their statement on this, the FA are simultaneously trying to show that they take accusations of racism seriously, but that they also respect the legal conventions of a defendant being innocent until proven guilty. I argue that rather than coming across as being strong and proactive, the FA instead made a decision that makes it look weak and indecisive.
Before I progress any further it’s worth pointing out that I have no real allegiance to John Terry here. Certainly I’m not a Chelsea fan looking to stand in his corner. On the other hand though, I don’t think Terry’s good enough to get into the England XI and therefore for footballing reasons, I wouldn’t have him as England captain. All that interests me is seeing an appropriate decision being made in relation to John Terry’s immediate future with England- something which this latest move hasn’t done.
There were only two decisions that the FA could make. The first would be to work on the assumption that Terry is innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, no action should be taken against John Terry until after his trial, and the FA should continue to fully back their man. By stripping Terry of the captaincy but still keeping him in the squad, they’re creating the impression that they think Terry is guilty but are afraid to publicly admit so. This is hardly the way to deal with someone who’s meant to be treated as if he’s done nothing wrong - especially when you consider that Liverpool were unwavering in their support for Luis Suarez up until his racism-related FA hearing.
The only other approach that the FA could have taken would have been to drop Terry immediately from the England squad until after his trial. The FA rightly has to be seen to take a zero-tolerance stance towards racist incidences. But, in only taking away some of Terry’s privileges as an England player, the FA are making themselves out to be doing this half-heartedly. It is also worth noting the divisiveness that Terry’s presence might have within a racially mixed England squad, one of whose most senior members is the brother of Anton Ferdinand. Instead, all this FA decision does is suggest a malleable approach to their supposed zero-tolerance stance towards racism which in turn may destabilize the entire team.
In this instance, the FA had to make a clear decision but instead have made a move that on the one hand, shows an unwillingness to support their player, and on the other, suggests that they are uncertain on their zero-tolerance policy towards racism. For what it’s worth, I personally would have kept Terry as captain (as much as I wouldn’t want to). The FA has a duty to uphold legal conventions which in this case means treating Terry for now, as if he’s done nothing wrong. That said, I would have fully understood the FA if they had decided to drop Terry entirely given the severity of the accusations levelled against him. After all, a precedent had already been set with Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate not being considered for selection prior to their 2002 trial for assaulting an Asian student.
It was a tough decision for the FA but that’s what was needed – a real decision – not this half-baked thing that they’ve come up with. Either back your man fully, or don’t do so at all.
Before I progress any further it’s worth pointing out that I have no real allegiance to John Terry here. Certainly I’m not a Chelsea fan looking to stand in his corner. On the other hand though, I don’t think Terry’s good enough to get into the England XI and therefore for footballing reasons, I wouldn’t have him as England captain. All that interests me is seeing an appropriate decision being made in relation to John Terry’s immediate future with England- something which this latest move hasn’t done.
There were only two decisions that the FA could make. The first would be to work on the assumption that Terry is innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, no action should be taken against John Terry until after his trial, and the FA should continue to fully back their man. By stripping Terry of the captaincy but still keeping him in the squad, they’re creating the impression that they think Terry is guilty but are afraid to publicly admit so. This is hardly the way to deal with someone who’s meant to be treated as if he’s done nothing wrong - especially when you consider that Liverpool were unwavering in their support for Luis Suarez up until his racism-related FA hearing.
The only other approach that the FA could have taken would have been to drop Terry immediately from the England squad until after his trial. The FA rightly has to be seen to take a zero-tolerance stance towards racist incidences. But, in only taking away some of Terry’s privileges as an England player, the FA are making themselves out to be doing this half-heartedly. It is also worth noting the divisiveness that Terry’s presence might have within a racially mixed England squad, one of whose most senior members is the brother of Anton Ferdinand. Instead, all this FA decision does is suggest a malleable approach to their supposed zero-tolerance stance towards racism which in turn may destabilize the entire team.
In this instance, the FA had to make a clear decision but instead have made a move that on the one hand, shows an unwillingness to support their player, and on the other, suggests that they are uncertain on their zero-tolerance policy towards racism. For what it’s worth, I personally would have kept Terry as captain (as much as I wouldn’t want to). The FA has a duty to uphold legal conventions which in this case means treating Terry for now, as if he’s done nothing wrong. That said, I would have fully understood the FA if they had decided to drop Terry entirely given the severity of the accusations levelled against him. After all, a precedent had already been set with Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate not being considered for selection prior to their 2002 trial for assaulting an Asian student.
It was a tough decision for the FA but that’s what was needed – a real decision – not this half-baked thing that they’ve come up with. Either back your man fully, or don’t do so at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)