Ici D'Ailleurs
Matt Elliott : Howling Songs (UK,2008)*****
After his band-related period, Matt Elliott focuses himself already for a while as a distinctive singer-songwriter. I still remember how the moody release of his former band The Third Eye Foundation called “Little Lost Soul” (2000) opened my taste for the use of breakbeats and intelligent beats into music (more complex form of drum’n bass foundations). From a few fragments I heard on the net I expected already fine song music with interesting, intelligent lyrical / context-founded ideas on his solo works, but this album still exceeded my expectations. It is part of a trilogy consisting of ‘Drinking Songs’ (2005), ‘Failing Songs’ (2006), and ‘Howling Songs’ (2008). All of this has relationship with unacceptable truths meant for the general public domain. People can be thrown out for some ideas (it is still a bit more easy to put them into songs) as if they were drunk. Other songs or truths are unacceptable except when someone is crying, and this preferably without too many words or insights why. It is a howling to the moon. It won’t be heard in time. The moon waxes and wanes with their own started energies. We see society repeating itself its systems of pyramidal profits, and even in the failing moments they are in control. There is no change. For them, it is even relatively easy to keep also in this moment the gangster-like profitable patterns intact.*
Matt Elliott has that beautiful penetrating voice of consciousness, which is overdubbed with arrangements, crying with choruses of people -like communal thoughts. His music builds up with emotions, with breaks for the choruses, and with instrumental introductions built from guitar, oscillating fingerpickings (that have a Greek flavour with a Spanish accent in the playing, engaged with a Slavic energy, -sometimes crying deep as if from a certain deeper Jewish style of origin-). The energy builds up slowly with each song to a highlighting contemporary vision of additional piano, cello, violin, accordion and distorted electric guitars, with impassioned but very controlled tensions, wild arrangements bursting out its lines, but keeping track and keeping the flavours all intact, as if like a howling waltz. This is intelligent music. I will even call it "an instant classic."
(I heard that amongst the participants are a Spanish violinist, a cellist from Encre and the pianist from Half Asleep). Highly recommended !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In a large afterword I tried to describe how in all changes that ruled European, American, Russian history and Middle East. For a view from England, all the processes of change seem to have started from the point of industrialisation, from which where they formed their own visions how Europe and the World was going to look like. They thought the processes of evolution were simply going to get rid off the system of old Europe and its kingdoms, and that economy was going to unite Europe. All idea-based politics were regarded as threats to liberalisation, so this included the evolutions from Russia (communism) as well as the evolutions in Germany no matter to where they were trying going to lead to. What they already saw as a threat was that within Europe economy very much depended on Germany and its evolution, and that this evolution always has been associated with ideas of a general people’s consciousness. We must not forget how in England industrialisation broke up the difference between aristocracy and ordinary people, while in Western Europe ordinary citizens often had an independent cultural consciousness which have been only limited and restricted by foreign invasions and Catholic Religion. So actually in Western Europe except England its process of growth was also involved with forms of nationalism and proud because of its history of these former limitations. European history seen from English visions sees the process of growth preferable in benefit of the economy, and find all the other forms a threat to the independently working intellect. Their reactions to all what happened in the past are explained by this fact. Germany was a country which preferable was limited in its expressions of nationalist proud, in reality was also milked out during the first half of a century helping to make nations like America big. Germany (who of course had been a threat, and now shut down with a hard punishment) after a while saved itself from an endless continuation of their war debts after the First World War, by bankruptcy, something which made also some (especially foreign) companies huge because their debts no longer existed. The second recession which had depended on certain structures, started in the US, to which the American countries suddenly withdrew from Germany, bringing Germany a second crisis (in reality the crisis inflicted the whole world economy, but that's how it looked like ; myself I also never understood why these companies left at that stage). After a long struggle in forming this new order in getting rid of the old European structure with kings and wars (for German speaking countries, from the Hapsburg generation), and from religiously led rights (-I will not talk about how this process evolved in Europe, because that story is too long and did not even end yet-). With all the economic changes leading these changes they also really inflicted and mixed further the possibilities from all layers of citizens. And where such changes happen, it is logical that lots of opinions wee struggling for more power. It was as if these struggles were all guided by some philosophically associated front opinions. But because times were hard, and solutions were desperate, it also didn’t take too long before it also became a matter of choosing between either Communism (which more seemed a threat from the outside) or Right wing conservatism (which seemed like returning to their own roots), and it was logical what to choose at that time, even when both choices could easily lead to extremes, because the struggle was also so radical. Those who made extra money from loans with huge interests during that period were blamed for the previous situations, as well as those people behind the companies that seem to have betrayed 'the people'. It had become a war of "race", with in fact a simultaneously started and similar process in Germany, as there as in Israel. "Race" (luckily) gave a bad feeling after the war. But the perspectives in fact only changed words. With 'religion' for some (by those coming outside Western Europe especially, because we have faced the trouble of this sort of abuse before, even when we never really got read of its whole influence on society) (as simplified ideas and solutions) and 'money' everything became and was still allowed. Today we just experienced the bursting of the bubble of the profit economy. This means we're also left with the last goal with which everything will be restricted and accepted, by "religion". I wrote many more details of this complete process. A small essay is added on a different page.
History should be about recognizing of some patterns in time, without judgement on who's to blame for it all. All still existing and also unquestioned tendencies still continue to shape the world further as it is today and tomorrow ("economy", "politics", "religion"). By looking at the goals made with those words you can predict better and deal with history into a more realistic perspective. I don't say that we have much choice in those changes. But we could try dealing with those facts that none of them get too extreme and get better integrated with a bit more sense and care??
- Why should we accept all possible variations of religion as a 'human right' that can be allowed to be generalized, when little of these forms manifest themselves with a sense of human rights, or make any other variations of reason possible. Aren't we ourselves today allowing to make grow the extremes, allowing intellectually limited opinions instead of opening up cultural expressions? Most experimental thoughts or philosophy or extreme ideas are especially dangerous when generalized, are only interesting different 'experimental angles' for those few who are not really looking for an orientation and explanation of their whole human being and purpose. But if it does not grab all the variations of humanity, it should also not be treated as something 'universal' to take control over something much more practical and humane.-
About some evolutions in these two subjects (economy and religion) I added some thoughts in a separate essay. Only a very small part of it was inspired by Matt Elliott, namely the wondering how much we can really say, even when in proportion and dealing with an objectivity and when dealing with the complexity of the activated and often extreme perspectives guiding people around us, and misleading especially ourselves, and also about how much systems like the stock exchange are really necessary, wondering how it could have come to this proportion, and this while questioning how any of the less objective and practical goals can change reality drastically if we let it happen, and not limit their extreme forms in time.
