Procrastination man - Part 2

Not about Monty Python here; however, one of my entries is getting ridiculously spammed (the review of Sunshine), which annoys me enormously. As a result, I have switched the entire entry off [I have not found a way to disable comments on a particular entry on dotclear yet, and do not want to read the entire php script to find out] I might install a plug-in supposed to block spam, but from what I could read it is over-zealous... so I still have to decide. Anyway, for now, comments are still possible [and welcome], but they are checked by myself before being published. I hate spam :-(

Revelation rock-gospel choirs - I have mentioned them before - but now they take another dimension in my life.

For Lyon Rev has now started! Yesterday, the first ever rehearsal took place. Admittedly, it is nothing like Warwick Rev in terms of organisation, let alone numbers. So far, there's the four of us, plus someone who will come next time; hardly, some might argue, stuff for a rock-gospel choir! But the enthusiasm is there, and, with faith, we already managed to sound great (in my opinion) on a couple of Rev classics - Privilege and Sanctuary - both awesome songs!
And this, despite my quite frankly poor singing/teaching/conducting. But we will get there. Faith manages. It always does.

---

So, time for a little talk about what Rev is about. It's not about preparing a concert, it's not about the art of gospel - it's about having fun whilst singing, about drawing out hidden abilities, and about meeting other people who think alike. The Aims and Values state this and imply more - especially my favourite two:

1. To create a choir where people can build friendships, draw out hidden abilities, and be accepted for who and what they are. 2. There are no prerequisites to joining Revelation.

And as there are no prerequisites, for instance, teaching is done by hearing, not through sheet musics, so that people who cannot read the latter are not excluded.
It is, frankly, tough to put the spirit of Rev in words. I guess you have to have lived it to know. The A&V are, obviously, a start, and strive to sum up the quintessence of Revelation. But Rev is an experience, a group of friends, a lot of fun, and Haribo - with something greater than tolerance, for tolerance implies a judgment, let's call it entire openness. And wholeheartedness from all involved!

---

So yeah, I'm very happy that Lyon Rev could start. And that the other (three) members of the choir have accepted it to be a Rev choir.
Rehearsals are held on Thursdays at 6.30pm in the ENS Sciences (no rehearsal next week due to All Saints' Day). For more info, just add a comment to this entry.

Following the privatisation of formerly French-owned Dagris (a society dealing mainly with managing cotton trade in Africa), fair trade, or rather Fairtrade branding, is once more in the centre of controversy. The issue arose when Dagris turned to the blue and green label (known in France as Max Havelaar).

---

What are the issues? That the branding goes to ethically-dubious companies: Fairtrade has become more of a PR stunt for those applying it than a genuine willingness to improve producers' lives. As an example, the UK-based (organic) chocolate company Green & Black's is producing lots of different kinds of chocolate, amongst which the much publicised Maya Gold is Fairtrade-branded. And is the only one of them to be so. Thus, the entire range of Green & Black's products benefits from a positive image.
The same could be said of outlets offering Fairtrade products and yet being far from embracing a development philosophy. The example that springs to mind is Starbucks . They may very well offer Fairtrade coffee, among other products. But recently it lost a PR war to development companies, dealing with the trademarking of certain coffees, when the American giant opposed the Ethiopian attempts to protect the name of some of its regions. More infos about the coffee name row in Der Spiegel (English)
Which leads to the following reminder:

Fairtrade is a (fairly reliable in my opinion) label applying to the product itself, not the outlet, or the company selling it, or the range of products of a same brand.

---

Obviously, the scale that the Fairtrade movement has, happily, taken over the past couple of years, has led to the labelling to be more business-like. Assessing products has a cost, that can only be met by donations to a certain point. So being Fairtrade has an inherent cost, in terms of labelling, that goes to the labelling business. This leads to regroupment of small growers into bigger cooperatives - to make the very labelling possible. This criticism has been levelled at the idea of a Fairtrade label. I, personally, do not see a problem in making the growing more efficient, so long as it is self-managed; and even though this may well make it harder to measure the outcome in terms of the individual grower's life, it is a help to development.
Also, being a label implies the definition of a certain number of norms/boundaries, which have been set in stone; and may well just be met by Fairtrade labelled products. This is, again, the situation of the trader not embracing the fair trade philosophy, but trying to pull a PR stunt allowing for a higher selling price, and it is quite sad that it is so. However, one must think that these boundary-prices, even though relatively low, are not met by non-Fairtrade products, which is quite relevant of the situation of standard growers.
Far from fair Nestlé is said to be in touch with Fairtrade and wanting to introduce Fairtrade products. I say, let them. Of course, it will be little more than a PR stunt on Nestlé's part, and will not mean that Nestlé has suddenly turned into the humanitarian company that it is not. But it will improve certain growers' life conditions.

---

Most of the criticism levelled at Fairtrade is thus quite dubious and leads to interrogations as to whether those criticising it really have the interests of development at heart. However, this is not true of all the criticism. And here comes the downside of fair trade.
The current situation of growers' underpayment (not mentioning how ridiculous their earnings in terms of percentage of the final produc's cost), and the reason why the growing industry is not sustainable for standard growers, stems from a global overproduction of certain products, coffee being one of the worst examples. This is not a consequence of the Fairtrade movement; but of the IMF/World Bank's recommendations conditions. However, Fairtrade is maintaining incentive for, say, coffee growers, by artificially upping the prices. Which in term allows for a continued overproduction of coffee.
Economically, Fairtrade makes no sense. In any simulator, you'd just wait for the situation to come to an acceptable compromise between offer and demand. However, in real life, there is little choice - for farmers have been encouraged to grow coffee (was it in an attempt to keep coffee prices low?), and are now in a dead-end. Somehow, it is our own doing we're trying to put straight.
But because of this argument, we can see Fairtrade is not meant to be a long-term solution. It is far from perfect, but it is necessary, as a patch.

---

We can do better, obviously: Fairtrade is not enough. If we want to pursue in the 1964 Trade not Aid! direction, we must be more demanding than what the Fairtrade label has to offer. We have to choose brands that ensure there is a real difference for the growers ^[1]. Oxfam is one of them. Long-term, we may want to implement some quotas, in terms of percentage this time, of what the grower earns. This can be done through political lobbying.
And we can support development. Practically, on different levels, from campaigning kits to goats, from education to healthcare. This is just the reason why Oxfam Unwrapped is so great.

Is it wrong that despite the fact that I have been back from the UK for, what now, over two months, I still am moved more by stuff happening over the Channel in Warwick than stuff happening to me here?
I mean, when the BIE / International-flavoured association I have created - proved to be hugely popular, of course it pleased me and I was excited about it. Similarly, when positive stuff happens around me here, like the possibility of getting involved, I am pleased about it.
But trivial things happening in Warwick make me happier, deep down inside. Like when the Student Cinema had a sell-out last night. This is the single thing that has made me happiest in at least a month. Or when Oxfam is breaking records in terms of sales. It gets me more excited than anything else.
I feel weird. But still happy about last night's sell-out. :-)

Maybe it's because I watched the Doctor Who episode 42 again today, but I couldn't help thinking of it whilst watching Sunshine. Not that they compare, mind. Apart from having a Sun as central element to the plot, and apart from Doctor Who showing some solar flares where Sunshine does not, the comparison does not have much going for it. Oh yeah, Chris Evans, former former Doctor Who sidekick's boyfriend, stars in it. (For some reason, people think I am obsessed with Doctor Who. But I'm not. Am I?)
Back to Sunshine then. The plot is simple enough to be efficient: Earth, distant future, the Sun is dying out and a mission, Icarus, has been sent out to drop a payload into the dying star, to revive it. The first attempt failed, and there was no news of the crew; and the film follows the eight-people team of the second and last possible attempt. What will happen from then on is almost obvious. Things go wrong, the first mission has a role to play - but is it for better or for worse?
As the trailer gives it away, it is not a spoiler (well not more than mentioning the Dalek hybrid after the release of the Radio Times. Me? Obsessed?) to say that one of the crew of Icarus 1 somehow intrudes Icarus 2 and starts causing trouble. But the trailer is misleading. Sunshine is not just another film where people are trapped with a murderer, and killed off one after another, trying to find out who is the murderer. It is far more original, insofar as it is a mix of genres.
You get the space odyssey atmosphere with the discussion of the crew at the beginning. You get the armaggedon film with some random guys being heroes. You get the sci-fi movie with the futuristic environment aboard the ship (some say it reminds of Alien in its style, having not seen the film I cannot judge), for instance automated onboard computer talking. You get the action film with some remarkable stunts (ok, not so staggering). And then you get the horror film, the latter being the only part I disapprove of.
Graphically, Sunshine is stunning. The CGI involved in creating the Sun from up close, and for designing the Icarus solar shields, is impressive to say the least. You see how Doctor Who could look like with a bigger budget. Sorry, won't mention it again! The directing is clever, so that you get quasi-monochrome scenes without it being aggressive. But I do wish the director had dropped the subliminal pictures. They just don't serve their purpose at that precise point. The acting is ok, the music is partly awesome.
And then there's the plotholes. Sunshine is not a film you go to have an intriguing, complex and consistent plot. It is first & foremost entertainment. For starters, I thought the sun would expand into a giant red before dying out, so the whole premise of the film is wrong. But even otherwise, the plot leaves some gaping holes, especially the jump between ships bit, which is just a bit far-fetched, as well as the surviving member of Icarus 1. Yet, it leaves space for some nice philosophy - can you jeopardise one life for millions? etc.
Sunshine is, thus, a more refreshing film than it seems at first glance, and I am grateful to George for giving me the DVD. It is worth seeing - not a chef-d'oeuvre, but still a good 100 minutes.

Warwick Student Cinema is showing Sunshine on Thursday week 3, that's the eighteenth of October. Go and see it if you can, it is worth it.

The task has started. If I cannot be in Warwick, then I'll make Lyon as much like Warwick as I possibly can. There might be a slight difficulty when it comes to telling people to drive on the left (which is, historically, the correct side), and to make them speak English (preferably with a Brummie accent) - but apart from these two details, it is (cough) doable.
Where does it start? Amongst my many addictive occupations in Warwick were the following three: Oxfam, Revelation, Warwick Student Cinema so it is only natural to carry on in this direction.

---

In terms of Oxfamming: charity shops are unfortunately not a famous concept in France, and there is only one pilot Oxfam shop in France. It is situated fairly far from Lyon, so there is no question of going there. Also, as it opened in January this year, there is no way Oxfam France is going to try it out before analysing how the pilot shop is doing (that's the point of these shops eh?). So I had to look into other possibilities; and I am now translating for Oxfam France. Though, the French branch only deals with campaigning, and is not fundraising for actual development/relief work, so I have decided to volunteer for Oxfam GB as a translator as well. Plus, obviously, the occasional shift in Oxfam @ Warwick University when I go back!
Oxfam is, between others, about fair trade (I never know whether I should write it fairtrade or fair trade). And fair trade is something that needs developing in France. So I am slowly (very slowly) starting to campaign for it, so that for instance the coffee machines also offer fair trade products. It is a long shot, but whatever progress is made in that direction, be it only awareness-rising, will be worth it.

In terms of Rev, now. Oh I love Rev so much I don't even know where to begin! There is (let's start with small things) the compulsive playing of Rev songs on my computer. From very old WiMs to Cambridge Rev, ReSits, Warwick Rev, etc. I have about twenty hours' worth of Rev on my computer! And more to come.
There is also the struggle to start up Lyon Rev. In all fairness, it is going better than expected, but maybe not good enough to make interesting harmonies :-( as there's only two male voices so far. But fingers crossed, and prayers, will make it work! Or at least we'll have fun trying. Talking of Rev, the French Haribos are different, and there's even something called World Mix around here. I'll have to bring some to Warwick.

In terms of the Student Cinema, well, there's no way we can do something as big as Warwick's in a 1,000 big university. But I shall carry on writing reviews for the real WSC, as well as DMing a couple of shows when I fly back there! I am so proud to have lifetime crew status. I'm actually letting it go to my head! There's not much more I can do in that direction.

---

And then of course, there's memories. Lots of them. And pictures on the wall. And blogging, just like I used to in Warwick. And telling people about how great England is, and how they should go there. I'm going to make Warwick as popular as Uppsala in the ENS! My walls are already covered with photos. Over four hundred of them, and flags.
(At times) I miss Warwick so much it really hurts. And I miss lots of people who I care about, and who care about me. Some of them I've lost contact with, and wish I hadn't; but for others, I am still very happy to be in touch! And I extend this invitation to all my British friends out there; if you ever think of visiting France, drop by in Lyon - it is a terrific city and will be even more so when I've shaped it like Warwick (imagine Warwick with a good public transport system), and contact me. If you don't have my contact details, I'm on facebook (the warwick address is not valid anymore I'm afraid).
Come, friends. I miss you.

Ah, was I excited towards the end of September: not only was I going to fly back to the UK (which is always good) but also, I was going to sing in the Royal Albert Hall! With some of my friends from Warwick Revelation (previous entry here), we were going to be part of a 3,000-strong choir, singing for charity. Here's a poster of the event:

And how disappointed in the concert itself I was :-( Why is that?
Well I felt cheated. Fundraising for Africa did happen, but it most certainly was not done mostly through tickets, but through the sponsorships that had to be collected to participate in this event (not even a concert): £25 per capita, times 3,000 singers makes... ooh a nice £75,000 , so that's where, in my opinion, most of the money came from. I'll keep my rant about the Oh but it's all for charity reply for the end; let's start with how the organisation worked, from the choirs' point of view.

---

Around the middle of term 3, the president of the choir received an invitation to come and sing in the Royal Albert Hall as part of a 3,000-strong choir; with only 40 places for our choir. I don't have the exact wording of the invitation, but it would seem that last time, some of the royalty was there - and it was a huge success. In one word, terribly exciting (especially if you know of the Royal Albert Hall).
Then, the choir leaders receive the songlist, comprising a total of eight songs on a CD plus the lyrics. No sheet music, and no indication on what parts we should sing/harmonies/...; at times the lyrics don't even fit the CD. But hey, maybe they've gone through some special effort to give us a recorded version, considering our Aims & Values state learning is to be done without sheet music (so that people without musical knowledge can learn all the same). Maybe, yeah, maybe we're the only choir without more specific info. Two rehearsals plus practice at home on the CD. Surprisingly enough, we were quite good after the second rehearsal on all the songs but a couple. Well, nevermind those two, we thought, there's always going to be the rehearsal with the rest of the choir in London, plus we shouldn't learn something we're not sure is what we should actually sing.
London, then. The Royal Albert Hall. Nice build:

And from the inside even more impressive. And, erm, eagerly waiting to find out how the concert's going to go. Like, how are they going to fit 3,000 people on stage? Are they going to split us into two or three subchoirs? Likely, eight songs is hardly stuff for a concert. We stand sit corrected. We are sitting in audience seats, and will be singing from there. Ok, fair enough, they couldn't have fit 3,000 on stage anyway. But wait - there's more: no choir conductor (well, hardly one) throughout, and as instruction: do all the harmonies you want. That's it. That's why there was no instructions/sheet music. Everyone was in the same position. The words will be on the screen, for everyone to sing along! Fine. But how is that choir-singing and not just a massive karaoke/sing-along, I wonder?

---

The concert event itself was almost as much of a disappointment. Despite stunning acts, especially from football artist Dan Magness or from the DHOL foundation or from Boney M, it was, first and foremost, a display of self-satisfaction, and autocongratulation for Patti Boulay's charity work in her charity. Oh, there were a couple of stars, but from the royalty no sign, nor from Thierry Henry, or other people who were supposed to come (and this, despite the event stretching out over one hour behind schedule, they were still "late" and stuck in the airport... right). The 3,000 voices part was less than ish. The only satisfying song was How Great Thou Art, which I must confess sounded awesome; but the other ones (especially Oh Happy Day, this version is soooo wrong) were borderline bad. It is notable that two of the songs were written by Patti Boulaye (Celebrate Good News, Viva Africa, the former being especially meaningless), and that her dance company, as well as her daughter, were present. Oh, did I mention that next year is marking a pause in the charity work and a return on stage? How well timed!
Superficiality is what marked the event. I wonder how much it cost to set up (Patti's dresses were definitely haute couture, and I am far from certain all the acts performed for free). With a bit of a mention to God every now and then, without any follow-up on it. And, most shockingly, the Footballer's Wives act. Dancing (the term is strong, admittedly) to Diamonds are a girl's best friend, with real diamonds, is the pinacle of bad taste in a charity event for Africa. A quick reminder that diamond industry is bleeding Africa dry and fueling conflicts: an interesting wikipedia article on the subject.

---

This leads to interrogations about the charity itself. When I had been told it was fighting against AIDS/HIV in Africa, I said great and did not mind writing a cheque. But then I wondered. The website of the charity will let you make up your mind on your own, but I find it disturbing that:

• A charity with the name of Reaching out for Africa only deals with the problem of AIDS/HIV.
• A charity revolves so much around one single person.
• The first clinic, if memory serves, was built in that person's village. Admittedly on land donated by her family. (not sure about that one, but it was mentioned in the event)
• And many other hackneyed questions, like where does all the money actually go?

so that in the end, if trying to help Africa or the poorer countries, I shall not turn to this charity. There is plenty of charities working in the Third World, here's a little list:

• Oxfam for general development support.
• World Vision if you're looking for a Christian charity (it is not evangelical or doing proselytism, which needs stressing)
• Médecins sans frontières for medical attention
• The Red Cross for general relief.

Talking about Africa, in these days, can hardly be done without mentioning Darfur & Chad, where one of the direst refugee situation takes place. You can donate directly to this cause via Oxfam here

---

To finish on a lighter note, the week-end in itself was amazing, and Warwick Rev definitely were the entertainers of the Royal Albert Hall, so that the atmosphere in the beginning was awesome! (Mexican waves, random singing).

It took a long time to finally get around to putting this online - finding a blog editor to put on my website, between others. But, hey, there's a reason why this blog is called Procrastination Man! Now I'll just have to get used to new syntax (aaah the good ol' Warwick blog... shame I can't use it anymore, but I don't see myself paying WGA just to be able to use the blog again).
Anyway. Yeah. Me. Missing Warwick, as ever.
Here is a link to my past musings.
I hope I'll keep this fairly regularly updated. I must say I missed having a blog a couple of times this year already. So it should be going fairly nicely :-)