3 weeks ago
So, this is way too perfect!
Anonymous asked: when did u realise u were french??

I didn’t suspect anything for the six first years of my life.

First thing I started noticing was how people wouldn’t stop speaking french around me like it was the only language they knew… Why would they do this? Did they want to sound sophisticated or something?? It pissed me off so much. And there was this croissant thing too!! I just kept on seeing them everywhere like it was normal breakfast food???

But I remember the day I really freaked out and realised what I was. It was on a sunday. When I woke up in the morning earlier than usual because I heard my dad coming home. He likes going for walks in the early morning. That’s his thing. What a weirdo. So, I went out of my room and proceeded to ask him where he’d been.

And he looked at me. He looked at me and -I KID YOU NOT- he just told me he’d went out to buy a baguette for breakfast. A baguette. Here he was, the holy procreator of nerds, a baguette under one arm, a smile on his face. Like he was fucking proud of himself or something. He couldn’t see what he’d done.

Suddenly everything made sense in my head. The blue, white and red flag I was seeing everywhere. The general grumpiness of everyone. The huge metal tower that looked a lot like the Eiffel Tower I kept on seeing on postcards in shops. The complaining. The obsession with wine. The weird smelly cheeses.

"Dad" I said in a shaky voice "are you… are we…"

How no one managed to speak english properly. How my grandparents had once eaten snails in front of me. The awful dubbing of the tv shows. The azerty keyboards. The crême brûlée.

"Are we french?" I asked, tears in my eyes.

He could have denied it. He could have changed the subject. He could have laughed and maybe -maybe- everything would have just gone back to normal.

"Am I french?" I said again.

He could have lied. But he didn’t. He answered in a slow, deep voice :


ROFL, this is awesome! XD

Author of PulseAudio, SystemD now targets Package Managers and Bootloaders
wrote the following post:

Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems

In a previous blog story I discussedFactory Reset, Stateless Systems, Reproducible Systems & Verifiable Systems, I now want to take the opportunity to explain a bit where we want to take this withsystemd in the longer run, and what we want to build out of it. This is going to be a longer story, so better grab a cold bottle ofClub Mate before you start reading.

Traditional Linux distributions are built around packaging systems like RPM or dpkg, and an organization model where upstream developers and downstream packagers are relatively clearly separated: an upstream developer writes code, and puts it somewhere online, in a tarball. A packager than grabs it and turns it into RPMs/DEBs. The user then grabs these RPMs/DEBs and installs them locally on the system. For a variety of uses this is a fantastic scheme: users have a large selection of readily packaged software available, in mostly uniform packaging, from a single source they can trust. In this scheme the distribution vets all software it packages, and as long as the user trusts the distribution all should be good. The distribution takes the responsibility of ensuring the software is not malicious, of timely fixing security problems and helping the user if something is wrong.

Upstream Projects
However, this scheme also has a number of problems, and doesn't fit many use-cases of our software particularly well. Let's have a look at the problems of this scheme for many upstreams:

      Upstream software vendors are fully dependent on downstream distributions to package their stuff. It's the downstream distribution that decides on schedules, packaging details, and how to handle support. Often upstream vendors want much faster release cycles then the downstream distributions follow.

      Realistic testing is extremely unreliable and next to impossible. Since the end-user can run a variety of different package versions together, and expects the software he runs to just work on any combination, the test matrix explodes. If upstream tests its version on distribution X release Y, then there's no guarantee that that's the precise combination of packages that the end user will eventually run. In fact, it is very unlikely that the end user will, since most distributions probably updated a number of libraries the package relies on by the time the package ends up being made available to the user. The fact that each package can be individually updated by the user, and each user can combine library versions, plug-ins and executables relatively freely, results in a high risk of something going wrong.

      Since there are so many different distributions in so many different versions around, if upstream tries to build and test software for them it needs to do so for a large number of distributions, which is a massive effort.

      The distributions are actually quite different in many ways. In fact, they are different in a lot of the most basic functionality. For example, the path where to put x86-64 libraries is different on Fedora and Debian derived systems..

      Developing software for a number of distributions and versions is hard: if you want to do it, you need to actually install them, each one of them, manually, and then build your software for each.

    Since most downstream distributions have strict licensing and trademark requirements (and rightly so), any kind of closed source software (or otherwise non-free) does not fit into this scheme at all.

This all together makes it really hard for many upstreams to work nicely with the current way how Linux works. Often they try to improve the situation for them, for example by bundling libraries, to make their test and build matrices smaller.

System Vendors
The toolbox approach of classic Linux distributions is fantastic for people who want to put together their individual system, nicely adjusted to exactly what they need. However, this is not really how many of today's Linux systems are built, installed or updated. If you build any kind of embedded device, a server system, or even user systems, you frequently do you work based on complete system images, that are linearly versioned. You build these images somewhere, and then you replicate them atomically to a larger number of systems. On these systems, you don't install or remove packages, you get a defined set of files, and besides installing or updating the system there are no ways how to change the set of tools you get.

The current Linux distributions are not particularly good at providing for this major use-case of Linux. Their strict focus on individual packages as well as package managers as end-user install and update tool is incompatible with what many system vendors want.

The classic Linux distribution scheme is frequently not what end users want, either. Many users are used to app markets like Android, Windows or iOS/Mac have. Markets are a platform that doesn't package, build or maintain software like distributions do, but simply allows users to quickly find and download the software they need, with the app vendor responsible for keeping the app updated, secured, and all that on the vendor's release cycle. Users tend to be impatient. They want their software quickly, and the fine distinction between trusting a single distribution or a myriad of app developers individually is usually not important for them. The companies behind the marketplaces usually try to improve this trust problem by providing sand-boxing technologies: as a replacement for the distribution that audits, vets, builds and packages the software and thus allows users to trust it to a certain level, these vendors try to find technical solutions to ensure that the software they offer for download can't be malicious.

Existing Approaches To Fix These Problems
Now, all the issues pointed out above are not new, and there are sometimes quite successful attempts to do something about it. Ubuntu Apps, Docker, Software Collections, ChromeOS, CoreOS all fix part of this problem set, usually with a strict focus on one facet of Linux systems. For example, Ubuntu Apps focus strictly on end user (desktop) applications, and don't care about how we built/update/install the OS itself, or containers. Docker OTOH focuses on containers only, and doesn't care about end-user apps. Software Collections tries to focus on the development environments. ChromeOS focuses on the OS itself, but only for end-user devices. CoreOS also focuses on the OS, but only for server systems.

The approaches they find are usually good at specific things, and use a variety of different technologies, on different layers. However, none of these projects tried to fix this problems in a generic way, for all uses, right in the core components of the OS itself.

Linux has come to tremendous successes because its kernel is so generic: you can build supercomputers and tiny embedded devices out of it. It's time we come up with a basic, reusable scheme how to solve the problem set described above, that is equally generic.

What We Want
The systemd cabal (Kay Sievers, Harald Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen, David Herrmann, and yours truly) recently met in Berlin about all these things, and tried to come up with a scheme that is somewhat simple, but tries to solve the issues generically, for all use-cases, as part of the systemd project. All that in a way that is somewhat compatible with the current scheme of distributions, to allow a slow, gradual adoption. Also, and that's something one cannot stress enough: the toolbox scheme of classic Linux distributions is actually a good one, and for many cases the right one. However, we need to make sure we make distributions relevant again for alluse-cases, not just those of highly individualized systems.

Anyway, so let's summarize what we are trying to do:

      We want an efficient way that allows vendors to package their software (regardless if just an app, or the whole OS) directly for the end user, and know the precise combination of libraries and packages it will operate with.

      We want to allow end users and administrators to install these packages on their systems, regardless which distribution they have installed on it.

      We want a unified solution that ultimately can cover updates for full systems, OS containers, end user apps, programming ABIs, and more. These updates shall be double-buffered, (at least). This is an absolute necessity if we want to prepare the ground for operating systems that manage themselves, that can update safely without administrator involvement.

    We want our images to be trustable (i.e. signed). In fact we want a fully trustable OS, with images that can be verified by a full trust chain from the firmware (EFI SecureBoot!), through the boot loader, through the kernel, and initrd. Cryptographically secure verification of the code we execute is relevant on the desktop (like ChromeOS does), but also for apps, for embedded devices and even on servers (in a post-Snowden world, in particular).

What We Propose
So much about the set of problems, and what we are trying to do. So, now, let's discuss the technical bits we came up with:

The scheme we propose is built around the variety of concepts of btrfs and Linux file system name-spacing. btrfs at this point already has a large number of features that fit neatly in our concept, and the maintainers are busy working on a couple of others we want to eventually make use of.

As first part of our proposal we make heavy use of btrfs sub-volumes and introduce a clear naming scheme for them. We name snapshots like this:


      -- This refers to a full vendor operating system tree. It's basically a /usr tree (and no other directories), in a specific version, with everything you need to boot it up inside it. The

      field is replaced by some vendor identifier, maybe a scheme like


      . The

      field specifies a CPU architecture the OS is designed for, for example


      . The

      field specifies a specific OS version, for example


      . An example sub-volume name could hence look like this:



      -- This refers to an


      of an operating system. Its basically a root directory, containing primarily /etc and /var (but possibly more). Sub-volumes of this type do not contain a populated /usr tree though. The

      field refers to some instance name (maybe the host name of the instance). The other fields are defined as above. An example sub-volume name is




      -- This refers to a vendor


      . A runtime here is supposed to be a set of libraries and other resources that are needed to run apps (for the concept of


      see below), all in a /usr tree. In this regard this is very similar to the


      sub-volumes explained above, however, while a


      sub-volume is a full OS and contains everything necessary to boot, a runtime is really only a set of libraries. You cannot boot it, but you can run apps with it. An example sub-volume name is:



      -- This is very similar to a vendor runtime, as described above, it contains just a /usr tree, but goes one step further: it additionally contains all development headers, compilers and build tools, that allow developing against a specific runtime. For each runtime there should be a framework. When you develop against a specific framework in a specific architecture, then the resulting app will be compatible with the runtime of the same vendor ID and architecture. Example:



      -- This encapsulates an application bundle. It contains a tree that at runtime is mounted to


      , and contains all the application's resources. The

      could be a string like


      , the

      refers to one the vendor id of one specific runtime the application is built for, for example


      . The


      refer to the architecture the application is built for, and of course its version. Example:



      -- This sub-volume shall refer to the home directory of the specific user. The

      field contains the user name, the


      fields the numeric Unix UIDs and GIDs of the user. The idea here is that in the long run the list of sub-volumes is sufficient as a user database (but see below). Example:


btrfs partitions that adhere to this naming scheme should be clearly identifiable. It is our intention to introduce a new GPT partition type ID for this.

How To Use It
After we introduced this naming scheme let's see what we can build of this:

      When booting up a system we mount the root directory from one of the


      sub-volumes, and then mount /usr from a matching




      here means it carries the same


      . Of course, by default we should pick the matching


      sub-volume with the newest version by default.

      When we boot up an OS container, we do exactly the same as the when we boot up a regular system: we simply combine a


      sub-volume with a



      When we enumerate the system's users we simply go through the list of



      When a user authenticates and logs in we mount his home directory from his snapshot.

      When an app is run, we set up a new file system name-space, mount the


      sub-volume to


      , and the appropriate


      sub-volume the app picked to


      , as well as the user's


      to its place.

      When a developer wants to develop against a specific runtime he installs the right framework, and then temporarily transitions into a name space where


      is mounted from the framework sub-volume, and

    from his own home directory. In this name space he then runs his build commands. He can build in multiple name spaces at the same time, if he intends to builds software for multiple runtimes or architectures at the same time.

Instantiating a new system or OS container (which is exactly the same in this scheme) just consists of creating a new appropriately namedroot sub-volume. Completely naturally you can share one vendor OS copy in one specific version with a multitude of container instances.

Everything is double-buffered (or actually, n-ary-buffered), becauseusr, runtime, framework, app sub-volumes can exist in multiple versions. Of course, by default the execution logic should always pick the newest release of each sub-volume, but it is up to the user keep multiple versions around, and possibly execute older versions, if he desires to do so. In fact, like on ChromeOS this could even be handled automatically: if a system fails to boot with a newer snapshot, the boot loader can automatically revert back to an older version of the OS.

An Example
Note that in result this allows installing not only multiple end-user applications into the same btrfs volume, but also multiple operating systems, multiple system instances, multiple runtimes, multiple frameworks. Or to spell this out in an example:

Let's say Fedora, Mandriva and ArchLinux all implement this scheme, and provide ready-made end-user images. Also, the GNOME, KDE, SDL projects all define a runtime+framework to develop against. Finally, both LibreOffice and Firefox provide their stuff according to this scheme. You can now trivially install of these into the same btrfs volume:
  • usr:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64:24.7
  • usr:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64:24.8
  • usr:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64:24.9
  • usr:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64:25beta
  • usr:com.mandriva.Client:i386:39.3
  • usr:com.mandriva.Client:i386:39.4
  • usr:com.mandriva.Client:i386:39.6
  • usr:org.archlinux.Desktop:x86_64:302.7.8
  • usr:org.archlinux.Desktop:x86_64:302.7.9
  • usr:org.archlinux.Desktop:x86_64:302.7.10
  • root:revolution:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64
  • root:testmachine:org.fedoraproject.WorkStation:x86_64
  • root:foo:com.mandriva.Client:i386
  • root:bar:org.archlinux.Desktop:x86_64
  • runtime:org.gnome.GNOME3_20:3.20.1
  • runtime:org.gnome.GNOME3_20:3.20.4
  • runtime:org.gnome.GNOME3_20:3.20.5
  • runtime:org.gnome.GNOME3_22:3.22.0
  • runtime:org.kde.KDE5_6:5.6.0
  • framework:org.gnome.GNOME3_22:3.22.0
  • framework:org.kde.KDE5_6:5.6.0
  • app:org.libreoffice.LibreOffice:GNOME3_20:x86_64:133
  • app:org.libreoffice.LibreOffice:GNOME3_22:x86_64:166
  • app:org.mozilla.Firefox:GNOME3_20:x86_64:39
  • app:org.mozilla.Firefox:GNOME3_20:x86_64:40
  • home:lennart:1000:1000
  • home:hrundivbakshi:1001:1001

In the example above, we have three vendor operating systems installed. All of them in three versions, and one even in a beta version. We have four system instances around. Two of them of Fedora, maybe one of them we usually boot from, the other we run for very specific purposes in an OS container. We also have the runtimes for two GNOME releases in multiple versions, plus one for KDE. Then, we have the development trees for one version of KDE and GNOME around, as well as two apps, that make use of two releases of the GNOME runtime. Finally, we have the home directories of two users.

Now, with the name-spacing concepts we introduced above, we can actually relatively freely mix and match apps and OSes, or develop against specific frameworks in specific versions on any operating system. It doesn't matter if you booted your ArchLinux instance, or your Fedora one, you can execute both LibreOffice and Firefox just fine, because at execution time they get matched up with the right runtime, and all of them are available from all the operating systems you installed. You get the precise runtime that the upstream vendor of Firefox/LibreOffice did their testing with. It doesn't matter anymore which distribution you run, and which distribution the vendor prefers.

Also, given that the user database is actually encoded in the sub-volume list, it doesn't matter which system you boot, the distribution should be able to find your local users automatically, without any configuration in /etc/passwd.

Building Blocks
With this naming scheme plus the way how we can combine them on execution we already came quite far, but how do we actually get these sub-volumes onto the final machines, and how do we update them? Well, btrfs has a feature they call "send-and-receive". It basically allows you do "diff" two file system versions, and generate a binary delta. You can generate these deltas on a developer's machine and then push them into the user's system, and he'll get the exact same sub-volume too. This is how we envision installation and updating of operating systems, applications, runtimes, frameworks. At installation time, we simply deserialize an initial send-and-receive delta into our btrfs volume, and later, when a new version is released we just add in the few bits that are new, by dropping in another send-and-receive delta under a new sub-volume name. And we do it exactly the same for the OS itself, for a runtime, a framework or an app. There's no technical distinction anymore. The underlying operation for installing apps, runtime, frameworks, vendor OSes, as well as the operation for updating them is done the exact same way for all.

Of course, keeping multiple full /usr trees around sounds like an awful lot of waste, after all they will contain a lot of very similar data, since a lot of resources are shared between distributions, frameworks and runtimes. However, thankfully btrfs actually is able to de-duplicate this for us. If we add in a new app snapshot, this simply adds in the new files that changed. Moreover different runtimes and operating systems might actually end up sharing the same tree.

Even though the example above focuses primarily on the end-user, desktop side of things, the concept is also extremely powerful in server scenarios. For example, it is easy to build your own usrtrees and deliver them to your hosts using this scheme. The usrsub-volumes are supposed to be something that administrators can put together. After deserializing them into a couple of hosts, you can trivially instantiate them as OS containers there, simply by adding a new root sub-volume for each instance, referencing the usr tree you just put together. Instantiating OS containers hence becomes as easy as creating a new btrfs sub-volume. And you can still update the images nicely, get fully double-buffered updates and everything.

And of course, this scheme also applies great to embedded use-cases. Regardless if you build a TV, an IVI system or a phone: you can put together you OS versions as usr trees, and then use btrfs-send-and-receive facilities to deliver them to the systems, and update them there.

Many people when they hear the word "btrfs" instantly reply with "is it ready yet?". Thankfully, most of the functionality we really need here is strictly read-only. With the exception of the homesub-volumes (see below) all snapshots are strictly read-only, and are delivered as immutable vendor trees onto the devices. They never are changed. Even if btrfs might still be immature, for this kind of read-only logic it should be more than good enough.

Note that this scheme also enables doing fat systems: for example, an installer image could include a Fedora version compiled for x86-64, one for i386, one for ARM, all in the same btrfs volume. Due to btrfs' de-duplication they will share as much as possible, and when the image is booted up the right sub-volume is automatically picked. Something similar of course applies to the apps too!

This also allows us to implement something that we like to callOperating-System-As-A-Virus. Installing a new system is little more than:

    • Creating a new GPT partition table
    • Adding an EFI System Partition (FAT) to it
    • Adding a new btrfs volume to it
    • Deserializing a single

    sub-volume into the btrfs volume
  • Installing a boot loader
  • Rebooting

Now, since the only real vendor data you need is the usr sub-volume, you can trivially duplicate this onto any block device you want. Let's say you are a happy Fedora user, and you want to provide a friend with his own installation of this awesome system, all on a USB stick. All you have to do for this is do the steps above, using your installedusr tree as source to copy. And there you go! And you don't have to be afraid that any of your personal data is copied too, as the usrsub-volume is the exact version your vendor provided you with. Or with other words: there's no distinction anymore between installer images and installed systems. It's all the same. Installation becomes replication, not more. Live-CDs and installed systems can be fully identical.

Note that in this design apps are actually developed against a single, very specific runtime, that contains all libraries it can link against (including a specific glibc version!). Any library that is not included in the runtime the developer picked must be included in the app itself. This is similar how apps on Android declare one very specific Android version they are developed against. This greatly simplifies application installation, as there's no dependency hell: each app pulls in one runtime, and the app is actually free to pick which one, as you can have multiple installed, though only one is used by each app.

Also note that operating systems built this way will never see "half-updated" systems, as it is common when a system is updated using RPM/dpkg. When updating the system the code will either run the old or the new version, but it will never see part of the old files and part of the new files. This is the same for apps, runtimes, and frameworks, too.

Where We Are Now
We are currently working on a lot of the groundwork necessary for this. This scheme relies on the ability to monopolize the vendor OS resources in /usr, which is the key of what I described inFactory Reset, Stateless Systems, Reproducible Systems & Verifiable Systemsa few weeks back. Then, of course, for the full desktop app concept we need a strong sandbox, that does more than just hiding files from the file system view. After all with an app concept like the above the primary interfacing between the executed desktop apps and the rest of the system is via IPC (which is why we work on kdbus and teach it all kinds of sand-boxing features), and the kernel itself. Harald Hoyer has started working on generating the btrfs send-and-receive images based on Fedora.

Getting to the full scheme will take a while. Currently we have many of the building blocks ready, but some major items are missing. For example, we push quite a few problems into btrfs, that other solutions try to solve in user space. One of them is actually signing/verification of images. The btrfs maintainers are working on adding this to the code base, but currently nothing exists. This functionality is essential though to come to a fully verified system where a trust chain exists all the way from the firmware to the apps. Also, to make the home sub-volume scheme fully workable we actually need encrypted sub-volumes, so that the sub-volume's pass-phrase can be used for authenticating users in PAM. This doesn't exist either.

Working towards this scheme is a gradual process. Many of the steps we require for this are useful outside of the grand scheme though, which means we can slowly work towards the goal, and our users can already take benefit of what we are working on as we go.

Also, and most importantly, this is not really a departure from traditional operating systems:

Each app, each OS and each app sees a traditional Unix hierarchy with /usr, /home, /opt, /var, /etc. It executes in an environment that is pretty much identical to how it would be run on traditional systems.

There's no need to fully move to a system that uses only btrfs and follows strictly this sub-volume scheme. For example, we intend to provide implicit support for systems that are installed on ext4 or xfs, or that are put together with traditional packaging tools such as RPM or dpkg: if the the user tries to install a runtime/app/framework/os image on a system that doesn't use btrfs so far, it can just create a loop-back btrfs image in /var, and push the data into that. Even us developers will run our stuff like this for a while, after all this new scheme is not particularly useful for highly individualized systems, and we developers usually tend to run systems like that.

Also note that this in no way a departure from packaging systems like RPM or DEB. Even if the new scheme we propose is used for installing and updating a specific system, it is RPM/DEB that is used to put together the vendor OS tree initially. Hence, even in this scheme RPM/DEB are highly relevant, though not strictly as an end-user tool anymore, but as a build tool.

So Let's Summarize Again What We Propose

      We want a unified scheme, how we can install and update OS images, user apps, runtimes and frameworks.

      We want a unified scheme how you can relatively freely mix OS images, apps, runtimes and frameworks on the same system.

      We want a fully trusted system, where cryptographic verification of all executed code can be done, all the way to the firmware, as standard feature of the system.

      We want to allow app vendors to write their programs against very specific frameworks, under the knowledge that they will end up being executed with the exact same set of libraries chosen.

      We want to allow parallel installation of multiple OSes and versions of them, multiple runtimes in multiple versions, as well as multiple frameworks in multiple versions. And of course, multiple apps in multiple versions.

      We want everything

double buffered

      (or actual n-ary buffered), to ensure we can reliably update/rollback versions, in particular to safely do automatic updates.

      We want a system where updating a runtime, OS, framework, or OS container is as simple as adding in a new snapshot and restarting the runtime/OS/framework/OS container.

      We want a system where we can easily instantiate a number of OS instances from a single vendor tree, with zero difference for doing this on order to be able to boot it on bare metal/VM or as a container.

    We want to enable Linux to have an open scheme that people can use to build app markets and similar schemes, not restricted to a specific vendor.

Final Words
I'll be talking about this at LinuxCon Europe in October. I originally intended to discuss this at the Linux Plumbers Conference (which I assumed was the right forum for this kind of major plumbing level improvement), and at linux.conf.au, but there was no interest in my session submissions there...

Of course this is all work in progress. These are our current ideas we are working towards. As we progress we will likely change a number of things. For example, the precise naming of the sub-volumes might look very different in the end.

Of course, we are developers of the systemd project. Implementing this scheme is not just a job for the systemd developers. This is a reinvention how distributions work, and hence needs great support from the distributions. We really hope we can trigger some interest by publishing this proposal now, to get the distributions on board. This after all is explicitly not supposed to be a solution for one specific project and one specific vendor project, we care about making this open, and solving it for the generic case, without cutting corners.

If you have any questions about this, you know how you can reach us (IRC, mail, G+, ...).

The future is going to be awesome!

Earth Crisis at The Underworld Camden

Candlelight Records and Underworld presents... Earth Crisis
Live: earth crisis

Candlelight Records and Underworld presents...

Earth Crisis

plus support.

Price: GBP 15.00 adv.
Doors: 6pm
Curfew: 11pm


Earth Crisis is an American metalcore band from Syracuse, New York, active from 1989 until 2001, reuniting in 2007. Their most recent record, Neutralize the Threat, was released in July 12, 2011 through Century Media.

TIME: 18:00 - 22:15

Facebook: http://atnd.it/13626-0

Standard: GBP 15.00

Friday 10th October, 2014 @ 6:00 PM


The Underworld Camden, 174 Camden High Street, London, London

Jon Patterns

via Diaspora

2 months ago
wrote the following post:
Bulb - Fuf
Le deseo suerte a Misha Mansoor y sus proyectos.


#Metal #Djent #Technicalmetal #MetalOnDiaspora #music #instrumental #Bulb

The Comedy Club Chelmsford

The Comedy Club Chelmsford at Chelmsford City FC on Friday 28th November. 3 Top Comedians as Seen on TV.

Simon Feilder
"Highly Entertaining" TimeOut | "Compelling to watch" Chortle.co.uk
Simon first burst onto our screens as the in-house weather presenter for Channels 4's The Big Breakfast, where he swiftly graduated to fronting his own strand entitled Feilder's Dreams. This gave him the chance to; spend time with bands such as Aerosmith, The Offspring and even black metal gods Cradle of Filth; attend a dog wedding; feature in an episode of Friends in LA, and much much more...
Since diving headlong into the world of stand-up comedy, Simon has been a semi-finalist in the BBC New Comedy Awards.

Kelly Kingham
:A classy, enjoyable act" The Stage
Kelly is a comedian and writer.
He performs across the UK for promoters including The Comedy Club, Glee, Off the Kerb, Komedia, the Stand and Gag Reflex. He was a finalist in the Leicester Sq Theatre New Comedian 2013 and came joint 3rd in the NATYS 2014.
He also performs at fringe festivals including Edinburgh, Brighton and Buxton.

Mike McClean
The Big Breakfast (C4) Mad For It (ITV) Shameless (C4) 'The Office' (BBC)
Mike McLean has hosted numerous television shows for the BBC, ITV, C4, C5, Sky1 and Nickelodeon and excels at live TV.
He originally trained as an actor, at the Arden School of Theatre in Manchester. However, after leaving college Mike gravitated towards stand-up comedy and quickly broke onto the circuit with a comedy magic act. He was soon spotted by a TV producer from Nickelodeon and went on to front several shows for the channel, including "Nick AM", a live daily breakfast show. He later joined ITV to present the kids game show "It's Not Fair", followed by 2 series of "Mad for It", a live children's show, he devised, for ITV. In 2010 Mike returned to his acting routes, playing 'Father Tony' in "Shameless".

Door Time: 7:30 pm
Last Entry Time: 8:45 pm

Artists / Speakers: Simon Fielder, Kelly Kingham, Mike McClean.


Booking: http://atnd.it/13720-0

Standard Ticket: £14

Friday 28th November, 2014 @ 7:30 PM


Chelmsford City FC Melbourne Stadium, Salerno Way, London, London

The Flatliners live at The Underworld Camden

The Flatliners plus Masked Intruder live at The Underworld in Camden Town on Saturday 23rd August 2014.
The Flatliners, Masked Intruder

If you spent every minute, every penny of your adult life on the road, you might make a record like Dead Language.
There s something that happens when four people have been playing music together, day in and day out, for ten years. In every basement, every colossal concert hall, every small European nation that would have them, the same four people playing the same four instruments.
A full decade of plane tickets and van repairs and hangovers and fast food. At some point, the interaction between instruments, between members, transcends the brotherly love of most touring bands and enters the terrifying realm of twin telepathy. The Flatliners aren?t just four dudes banging out riffs five hundred miles from home every night. They?re four dudes banging out riffs in the hallways of the Overlook Hotel just like the unsettling twin girls in the The Shining. You see what I?m getting at yet?
It?s been three years since Cavalcade (2010), The Flatliners most successful album to date. A behemoth of a record, it brought famous friends like A Wilhelm Scream and Dillinger Four into the fold for huge songs like Shithawks and Bleed.
Which is why Dead Language is the perfect response ? it s the brutally crisp sound of four people in a room, the sonic payoff of a decade of learning how to play as one fierce unit. Its strength doesn?t come from racks of guitars or bass drops, but from its sparse precision. The band?s songwriting chops are as honed as their playing, allowing them the freedom to bang out their point quickly (Young Professionals) or take their time to make an impact (?Ashes Away?).
The Flatliners? records have always been an accurate, honest portrait of where the band lived, from the youthful explosion of Destroy to Create (2005) to the nuance of blooming adulthood on The Great Awake (2007), Which is why Dead Language, the band?s most direct and vital record to date, is the monument to the honesty of ten years in the trenches that it has to be.

Facebook: http://atnd.it/13396-1

End Time: 10:15 pm

General Admission: £13.00

Saturday 23rd August, 2014 @ 6:00 PM


The Underworld Camden, 174 Camden High Street, London, London

FeedMe Music presents...

FeedMe Music proudly present Collisions with support from Cyphar + more tbc
Collisions, Cyphar

"Collisions: Fast, heavy and in your face. One to watch for sure!"
M.D. Clayden ? Pitchshifter/This Is Menace

Forcing together elements of Melodic Metal, Punk, Drum and Bass and Dubstep,Collisions produce a distinctive and heavy sound that will compel you to move.

If comparisons need to be drawn, quotes of ?Skindred meets Pendulum? and ?Prodigy meets Arctic Monkeys? are uttered from the lips of stunned and sweaty gig goers leaving each show. Support comes from Cyphar + tbc

For full artist details please click on the EVENT LINK below where you can listen to tracks, watch video's and connect with them on Facebook and Twitter.

Tickets: https://billetto.co.uk/future-rock20140807

Event link: http://www.feedmemusic.co.uk/Events_Details.aspx?Event_ID=1369

Tickets: http://atnd.it/13509-0
YouTube: http://atnd.it/13509-2
Facebook: http://atnd.it/13509-3
Twitter: http://atnd.it/13509-4

Category: Live Music | Gig

Advance: £8.00, Door: £10.00

Thursday 7th August, 2014 @ 7:00 PM


229, 229 Great Portland Street, london

The Local Presents Mirel Wagner

Mirel Wagner is singer songwriter, born in Ethiopia and raised in Espoo, Finland. Signed to Sub Pop in 2013. Its just about her airy but rough voice and a minimalistic guitar picking.
Live: Mirel Wagner

Mirel Wagner

Mirel Wagner is singer songwriter, born in Ethiopia and raised in Espoo, Finland.Since age 16 she's writing gloomy Blues and Folk songs, stripped down to the bone. It's just about her airy but rough voice and a minimalistic guitar picking. Avoiding theatralic gestures effortlessly her music has a unique intensity and emotional weight.

update End of 2013 Mirel Wagner recorded new songs for a sophomore abum. This gonna be released August 2014, this tiime worldwide through Sub Pop Records.

Townes Van Zandt once said that there are two types of music.The blues and zip a dee doo dah. This falls into the blues category and a graveyard full of black metal guitarists couldn?t create anything half as heavy and raw as Mirel Wagners self titled debut album.In overall, this rugged, sad and beautiful blues folk album is simply amazing. It is able to travel into such deep and muddy waters that sometimes I can just barely see the surface, but I?m still fairly confident that these songs are more likely to heal me than drown me.(One Chord to Another)

Mirel Wagner is the real deal, an innovator among imitators. In a genre ridden with cliches she cuts through with the sheer the power of her lyrics and intricately fingerpicked guitar. And that voice.When I first heard her perform at an open mic night in Helsinki a few years back, it was THAT voice that blew me away. Deep and dark, it is the antithesis of how a young woman in her early twenties should sound.It has those world weary and resigned tones that make Bill.


Thursday 23rd October, 2014 @ 7:30 PM


St Pancras Old Church, Pancras Rd, London


via Rec.audio.pro

3 months ago
Re: Bose L1
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:43:24 AM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in
> the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running
> full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator,
> with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the
> radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees
> for the -3dB points at 1KC.
> And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all
> on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the
> vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline,
> and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage.

On the other hand, the electronic section of the Vocal Master system had mic preamps that would go into painful overload at a moment's notice. I still remember a folksinger at, I think, the Earl of Old Town who loved to excite that metallic ring with a loud vocal note, and did it at least once per song.

It may have sounded great for Willie Nelson, but he had/has a mellow voice that didn't drive the Vocal Master into overload.


Boss Bass ft. LOUDPVCK (USA)
Friday 17th October 2014
Chinese Laundry, 1 Slip Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000
Friday October 17th, Soapbox Events & Chinese Laundry bring Boss Bass back for another cycle at BASSIC this time with trap heavyweights LOUDPVCK.

Since blowing up (almost over night) LOUDPVCK has only continued to grow. With a remix for NERVO getting added to the Deckstar Management roster, receiving serious playtime on BBC Radio One, and not to mention getting lots o? love and support from the likes of: Skrillex, A-Trak, Dillon Francis, Zeds Dead, Danny Brown, 12th Planet, Adventure Club, Flosstradamus, Baauer, UZ, DJ Carnage, AC Slater, DJ CRAZE, Bro Safari, Brillz and Paper Diamond to name a ?few?, these boys know how to thrown down.

So. . .What does LOUDPVCK sound like? Genre-pigeon holes aside, they have thrown down some of the most filthy, catchy jams out there, causing their popularity to rise in a massively short amount of time. You can be sure, when the beat drops, you will have your hands up!

Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/loudpvck


Funny Women Present...Lucy Frederick and the Claw
Saturday 28th June 2014
Leicester Square Theatre, 6 Leicester Pl, Greater London
Join Lucy Frederick (Funny Women Award Finalist 2012, Amused Moose Laugh Off Semi-Finalist 2013) for an hour of stand up about the tell-tale signs that you might not be as socially able as you thought you were?

"Strong, wonderfully light hearted and enjoyable" **** - ThreeWeeks

"Delightful" - Broadway Baby

"Great comic timing!" - The Stage

The Gallery Pres. Thomas Gold
Friday 27th June 2014
Ministry of Sound, 103 Gaunt St, Elephant and Castle
The Gallery prepares for big room bliss and wonky bass lines, welcoming our very own Electric Dream Machine! Starting with Thomas Gold at the controls, whose wealth of party productions is bound to have the Box jumping! Signed to Axwells prestigious Axtone label plus other notable releases on Spinnin and Toolroom, it's this energetic formula which optimises the signature Thomas Gold sound. Its what rocked Ministry of Sound back in March, and led to other notable headline gigs in Asia and Miami this year.

Jay Hardway is the latest success story, from the renowned Dutch school of E D M. With productions endorsed by the worlds No.1 Hardwell and Martin Garrix, a 2013 collaboration with the latter arguably catapulted Jay to global stardom. Aptly entitled Wizard, it implies the magical presence which Hardway commands behind the decks. Boundless energy means an imposing stage presence, which amplifies his mix of fizzing riffs and crazy pitch bends into one devastating dance floor package.

Finally Ashley Wallbridge, well known to The Gallery after making his debut in 2010. August 2013 being his previous visit, Ashley has since successfully made a name in America with forward thinking, genre blurring productions that stay true to his trademark uplifting ethos. See reworks of the seminal anthems Greece 2000 and Airwave, plus more recently Lights and Thunder by Gareth Emery, for an indication of the carnage to ensue.

DNA lounge, 375 11th Street near Harrison in SoMa, San Francisco
Performing Live:

UNEARTH -- https://www.facebook.com/unearthofficial TEXAS IN JULY -- https://www.facebook.com/texasinjulyband CRUEL HAND -- https://www.facebook.com/cruelhand ARMED FOR APOCOLYPSE -- https://www.facebook.com/armedforapocalypse

With DJ:

Rob Metal

Unearth: Metalcore is a stubborn genre, and one that should never change. Luckily for tried and true death metal and metal core fans, we have Unearth to be its champion. For more than 15 years, Unearth has been staying true to the heavy metal genre that birthed them. Metal is their craft, and they do it with an attention to detail rivaled only by the dark brutality of their output. Part homage to legends like Pantera and At The Gates, part amendment to classic subgenres like Swedish death metal and early metalcore, and part uniquely Unearth, the band has never wavered in their grittiness, darkness, or their ability to excite the audience of headbangers (seriously, they've opened for metal legends Testament and easily held their own). Unearth features a death growling lead singer along with some stellar clean vocals and backing vocals from one of their two guitarists. They've got the low end down pat, solos galore, the soul of thrash metal egging them onwards, and enough stage antics for everyone. The band directly engages the audience (you will be sweated upon, front row) and leaps around the stage with wild abandon, antics that are true to the ethos of heavy metal, adding some levity to an already amped up live show. You get the feeling that these guys would be just as stoked to play someone's rowdy basement party as they would be opening up an arena festival -- they are genuine protectors of the faith (aka metal).

Texas In July: Emotional, earnest, raw, and truthful, Texas In July is a metalcore band from, you guessed it, Pennsylvania. Mixing soaring clean vocals reminiscent of emo-alternative rock of the early 2000s with guttural, growling lead vocals that shake your soul, Texas In July creates a moody yet fun blend of all things metalcore. Four boys decided to form Texas In July during their high school days and still have plenty of that youthful energy left to share with their fans. Constant touring has allowed these dudes to form a tight rapport and easy songwriting connection, despite a few line-up changes. Motifs such as transition, Christianity, and faith, mingle with the harder elements such as angry vocals, super powerful, forceful drumming, and in your face guitar. The band has got the technicality of the music down, both on record and throughout their aggressive live show, but also embraces groovin' out and jumping around on stage -- you can tell they're having fun and doing what they want to be doing. The crowd certainly picks up on the Texas In July attitude, and responds with unencumbered dancing. Every breakdown (and there are many) is a chance to jump up and waive your fists with glee.

Cruel Hand: From the tranquil wilderness of Portland, Maine, comes a decidedly un-tranquil band: Cruel Hand. Equal parts thrash, hardcore, and metal, Cruel Hand brings a devastating and brutal sound to every record and live show. The five piece haven't turned their back on fun, despite the deep heaviness of the music. Hair flies, sweat pours, and music pounds as Cruel Hand wails and growls. The band has played huge festival stages and small rooms with equal vigor - their energy, complete with rowdy stomping around stage and singing directly into the crowd, is big enough to capture any crowd. Dual guitars, excellent drumming, and lots of headbanging bring the audience some of the feeling from classic days of hardcore. Don't be surprised if their blend of thrashy hardcore inspires a mosh pit, just get out of the way.

Armed for Apocolypse: What exactly is Armed For The Apocalypse armed with? Heavy, heavy metal. You won't find any clean choruses or slightly happy tunes coming from this five piece from Chico, Ca. Hell, you'll only hear loud, aggressive, dark, and dangerous songs that rumble along at a dirge then switch to fast pace single chords and blast beats. Three guitars make for quite a heavy sound, especially when tuned down and pissed off. There's nothing more evil sounding than the growl emitted by Armed For The Apocalypse's singer -- as if he was calling some demons to his side. With dark lyrics and song titles that speak of demons, world ending, and, a personal favorite, "You Are Alive When They Start To Eat You," make no mistake: Armed For The Apocalypse is intensely, brutal, gory, and ready to explode your eardrums.

doors @ 6pm;
show @ 6:30pm.
all ages.
$14 advance;
$16 day of show.

RSVP: https://www.facebook.com/events/468004486679218/

Buy Tickets: $14: https://www.dnalounge.com/order/?item=54771 VIP Upstairs: $340: https://www.dnalounge.com/order/?item=54772 VIP Downstairs: $415: https://www.dnalounge.com/order/?item=54773 VIP Double: $680: https://www.dnalounge.com/order/?item=54774

Watch and listen:
Unearth: This Glorious Nightmare: http://youtu.be/MMI5bmlSrRg Texas In July New Beginnings: http://youtu.be/Vhz_7n1Nu9g Cruel Hand: Lock and Key: http://youtu.be/k44Y3DKBTtM Armed For Apocalypse Better Worlds The Road Will End: http://youtu.be/KuzhyK8YCas



7 months ago
2014 BE FIT CHALLENGE: JOIN TODAY& #10 ;& #10 ;On April
Tuesday, 1st April 2014
2014 BE FIT CHALLENGE: JOIN TODAY& & On April 1st, BeUNIK will re-launch the \\\"Be Fit\\\" campaign. We are challenging... http://t.co/SEAIbskAH5


via Spigot

4 days ago
College Football Week 8: Review http://sportazine.com/football/collegefootball/college-football-week-8-review/


via Friendica.free-beer.ch

4 days ago
& #1573 ;& #1585 ;& #1583 ;& #1608 ;& #1594 ;& #1575 ;& #1606 ;: & #1602 ;& #1583 ;& #1605 ;& #1606 ;& #1575 ; 4 & #1605 ;& #1591 ;& #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1576 ; & #1608 ;& #1576 ;& #1583 ;& #1608 ;& #1606 ;& #1607 ;& #1575 ; & #1604 ;& #1606 ; & #1606 ;& #1588 ;& #1575 ;& #1585 ;& #1603 ; & #1576 ;& #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1578 ;& #1581 ;& #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1601 ; & #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1583 ;& #1608 ;& #1604 ;& #1610 ; & #1590 ;& #1583 ; & #1583 ;& #1575 ;& #1593 ;& #1588 ; http://www.iraqicp.com/index.php/sections/news/20839-4-0


via Friendica.free-beer.ch

4 days ago
A Bridge to the Struggling Women in India – Speech of the RPFM to the International Meeting in Support of People’s War in india #ClassWar #Comrade http://www.signalfire.org/?p=28623


via Friendica.free-beer.ch

4 days ago
People’s War in India Clippings 19/10/2014 #ClassWar #Comrade http://www.signalfire.org/?p=28620


via Friendica.free-beer.ch

4 days ago
& #1608 ;& #1586 ;& #1610 ;& #1585 ; & #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1579 ;& #1602 ;& #1575 ;& #1601 ;& #1577 ; & #1610 ;& #1572 ;& #1603 ;& #1583 ; & #1590 ;& #1585 ;& #1608 ;& #1585 ;& #1577 ; & #1578 ;& #1594 ;& #1610 ;& #1610 ;& #1585 ; & #1605 ;& #1604 ;& #1575 ;& #1605 ;& #1581 ; & #1608 ;& #1586 ;& #1575 ;& #1585 ;& #1577 ; & #1575 ;& #1604 ;& #1579 ;& #1602 ;& #1575 ;& #1601 ;& #1577 ; & #1608 ;& #1578 ;& #1581 ;& #1608 ;& #1610 ;& #1604 ;& #1607 ;& #1575 ; & #1604 ;& #1605 ;& #1572 ;& #1587 ;& #1587 ;& #1577 ; & #1575 ;& #1606 ;& #1578 ;& #1575 ;& #1580 ;& #1610 ;& #1577 ; http://www.iraqicp.com/index.php/sections/news/20838-2014-10-19-18-11-54

THE FUTURE IS HERE! Australia's FIRST & ONLY 24/7 Rock-Metal Radio Station is calling you!


3 weeks ago
Feeling the need to get some metal?

Prowler + Feeling Dave
Fri Oct 3 2014
Doors 7pm


Prowler Feeling Davewww.redrattler.org
Prowler are the least typical metal band you could think of. With The Voice vocalist Gabriel Brandolini, it is the heaviest of metal infused with jazz, funk and the most eerie abandoned carnival seen at a beautiful sunrise. With Feeling Dave Doors 7pm

Jon Lawrence


2 months ago
EFA’s testimony to the Senate TIA Act Inquiry
On 29th July 2014, EFA Executive Officer Jon Lawrence and Alex Vulkanovski from EFA's Policy & Research Standing Committee testified before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in relation to the Committee's Inquiry into the Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 .

Image: SimonEast

Read EFA's submission to the Inquiry [PDF, 571KB]

Here is an extract from the official Hansard transcript ( original here ).

CHAIR (Senator LUDLAM): Welcome. Thank you very much for talking to us today. The committee has received your submission as submission No. 22. Do wish to make any amendments or alterations to that submission?

Mr Lawrence: We have prepared a statement as an overview of our position. We realise that we are coming towards the end of the process and you have probably heard most, if not all, of what we have to say already. We will try to keep it fairly high level and not labour your time in covering the same ground too extensively.

CHAIR: I think you are reasonably aware of the material that we have traversed so far. If you would like to make an opening statement, you can keep it as brief as you like and then will go to questions.

Mr Lawrence: As a bit of background, EFA are celebrating our 20th anniversary this year. We have been fighting for civil liberties within the digital space all that time. We are a national membership-based non-profit organisation. Essentially, our objectives are to promote the civil liberties of users in the digital context. We certainly do understand the challenges that intelligence and law enforcement face in a context of very rapid technological change and increasingly ubiquitous digital communications, and we obviously support appropriate and reasonable reform of relevant legislation, including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, to ensure that those agencies can have the tools they need to investigate, detect and prosecute serious criminal activity and other threats to the peace and security that Australians have long enjoyed, but we are very concerned, and have been for some time, that the T(IA) Act in its current form?as I am sure you are well aware?does not adequately balance the needs of security with protecting the rights and interests of citizens.

We are particularly concerned around the right to privacy and also the subversion of the presumption of innocence which mass surveillance brings with it. So we are keen to ensure that these rights, particularly, are given meaningful protection in any reform to the act. We are very concerned about the growth in the scale of access to data under the act. We believe that is far in excess of what any reasonable person could assert is necessary to tackle serious crime and terrorist activities and other threats to security. We are also strongly opposed to the introduction of any mandatory data retention regime, for a whole range of reasons, much of which Mr Waters covered in his testimony, so I will not cover that as well.

We also share concerns around the use of section 313 of the Telecommunications Act, as discussed. In particular, I would like to raise one other issue there, which is recent reports in the Fairfax media about police gaining access to mobile phone tower data in bulk. It is not clear to us whether this access is being achieved under the terms of the T(IA) Act or under section 313 of the Telecommunications Act or potentially under some other power, but we think that is something that requires some investigation, because it is clearly, by definition, bulk access to data of anyone with a mobile phone within the range of that mobile phone tower.

From a principle perspective, Mr Waters also mentioned the international principles on the application of human rights to communications surveillance. EFA was an original signatory of that document, which, as has been mentioned, was developed by a very wide range of actors from around the world and has now been signed by over 400 organisations, across not-for-profits, civil society generally and the commercial sector, from around the world. I will not labour the point there, but we would refer the committee to those principles, which are available at Necessaryandproportionate.org. We encourage you to go through them.

In terms of looking at the current context of where we are compared to when this act was written in 1979, obviously there have been a few changes in the way people communicate. I think it is important to stress that digital communications now, particularly for those in the younger generations, are an all-encompassing aspect of their personal and non-personal lives, in ways that obviously could not have been anticipated when this act was written. The idea that, for a lot of young people, the internet is real life is something that people need to absorb. With that comes the point that, while in many ways the only way to be truly private these days is not to use the internet, there are actually quite serious social costs involved in that in today's society, which I think need to be appreciated.

In line with that, we reject pretty strongly the assertion that taking the powers of this act from 1979, a context where mobile phones did not exist and the internet was still a pipedream, and extending those powers into a context of ubiquitous mobile devices and internet usage is not in any way a logical extension of the law to, as it were, keep up with technology on a like-for-like basis. We strongly believe that in fact this represents a very dramatic escalation of surveillance deep into all aspects of people's lives and goes far beyond anything originally envisaged when this act was drafted.

Mr Waters touched on some of the issues around the definition of metadata. It is clearly a pretty critical starting point that we get a clear definition of metadata. In the telephonic context it is fairly straightforward, but if we go beyond that into non-telephonic communications we have some very serious concerns that it is even technically feasible to effectively separate metadata from content, particularly in the case of email communications. We also strongly disagree with the assertion that metadata is less invasive than providing access to content. As the Attorney-General's Department itself admitted in its submission:

? telecommunications data can contain particularly sensitive personal information justifying special legal protection.

We completely and wholeheartedly agree with that. Clearly, it can be used to build a picture of a target, their network of associates, where they shop, where they eat, where they sleep. As Professor Edward Felten said in his submission to a US case involving the ACLU and James Clapper, who I believe is a former head of the NSA:

? metadata is often a proxy for content.

In many ways it should be, particularly in any substantive form, taken as much the same. David Seidler, you may be aware, recently did some work for ACCAN looking at data retention. His point was:

Although on its face, metadata might appear anonymised and trivial, the development of big data analysis techniques (for which metadata is ?perfect fodder?) means that the insights it provides after manipulation might well meet this definition?

of being content, that is.

We echo Mr Waters calls for tighter access restrictions to this data. I think it is very clear that, given the potentially highly invasive nature of this content, of this information, there should be much tighter restrictions and, ideally, a clearly defined list of agencies that are able to request access to data. As mentioned, there may be cases where agencies outside that list can apply via an approved agency, as it were, to do that, but we think that there do need to be some very tight restrictions around that. We also agree that there should be very tight, very stringent and very clearly defined thresholds for access to data. We support the implementation of a warrant process for access to metadata in any substantive form, as Mr Waters said, outside of simple customer information. We do not think there is a need for wider access to that, but for anything involving any substantive amount of metadata we would certainly support that.

In principle, we think the thresholds for access should be set taking into account the principle of proportionality and we should ensure that access is only available in relation to a reasonably serious offence?for example, a criminal offence attracting a certain maximum term of imprisonment or a civil offence attracting a predetermined minimum penalty, and where there is a reasonable suspicion of the people involved in such an offence. We also support calls for more detailed reporting of access to data, including all the points mentioned. We also see no reason why access to communications data by intelligence agencies should not be reported on, at least on a statistical basis. We cannot see any harm in doing that. We agree that there needs to be more effective external and independent oversight of this process. We would also suggest that there need to be very clear rules about what happens to data that has been accessed through this process, how long it is retained by the agencies and how it is disposed of and so forth.

Senator LEYONHJELM: This is similar to the question that I had for Mr Waters previously: are you approaching this from a civil liberties point of view or a privacy perspective? I heard you mention the presumption of innocence, so I am assuming that that is a factor. So are you, like Mr Waters, saying there is a private space and it should also exist in the electronic area, or are you saying this is a civil liberties issue of the relationship between the individual and the state?

Mr Lawrence: I would say both. As was mentioned, EFA works closely together with the APF on many issues. We share their views on most privacy factors?not all. We do believe?and I think it is important to touch on this?that it is important that there be a private space for people. As I mentioned earlier, I think that, if you are a young person these days, the social cost of opting out of things like Facebook and other social media is quite significant, and I do not think we can just dismiss that and say, 'If you really want privacy then don't use the internet.' I just do not think that is an effective response to the reality.

We are predominantly a civil liberties organisation. Privacy obviously is a large part of that for us, but we believe that this?and when I say 'this' I mean the entire scope of mass surveillance that we have become aware of, particularly over the last 12 to 13 months?really undermines the appropriate levels of government access to people's lives. As I say, if everyone is being surveilled then everyone is a potential suspect and is not really being treated as a citizen, which I guess is at the core of our concern.

Senator LEYONHJELM:I tend to agree with you on that. So at what point do we say it is acceptable if it means preventing a London bus bombing, a Bali bombing or those sorts of things? At what point do we say that we trade off a degree of either our privacy or our civil liberties in exchange for heading those sorts of things off? What is your view?

Mr Vulkanovski: Firstly, I would like to raise the point that civil liberties and national security do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game, so we should not treat it as such in terms of having to concede one to gain another. But, in terms of what kinds of restrictions or standards should be in place, basically at the moment the T(IA) Act allows for three things to justify it: a criminal offence, a civil penalty of any kind and any issue relating to revenue. Basically, the authorised bodies and persons are drafted as such. What Jon proposed, or what EFA proposed, was setting some kind of standard or test for that?even simply the employment of a 'reasonableness' test. That is a fairly wide, reasonably well understood term, but it is sufficient to allow some kind of threshold. Going back to your question, it is that threshold that can justify it.

You mentioned the London bombings. I would put up the example of littering, for instance?simple littering or a fine of arguably trivial value. These things are currently justifiable, and I use the word 'justifiable' as it is used in the T(IA) Act. So you are right to question what kind of threshold there should be. I do not think we can answer, right here and right now, what kind of threshold should be in place, but I think reasonableness is a good place to start.

Mr Lawrence: If I can just add to that, in some ways what I would do, without question, is turn it around and suggest that there actually is no real evidence?certainly not anything that we are aware of?that has shown that access to this sort of information does prevent activities like that. I was actually on a tube train in London at a quarter to nine on 7 July 2005, so I do not take this lightly, but there is no question that the British intelligence agencies did not have access to this sort of information prior to that act occurring.

Probably a more pertinent and recent example is the Boston Marathon bombings, where not only did the USA, through its various agencies, have essentially what appears to be unfettered access to telecommunications but also they knew these guys were dodgy, because the Russians had told them. They had even interviewed them. Having all this information did not stop the blowing up of the marathon. So there are genuine questions here, and there has been a fair bit of research done in various jurisdictions looking at just how effective this information is. Mr Waters touched on this as well. Having more information does not make things easier. In many ways, it potentially makes things harder. It also raises the likelihood of false flags and false positives?

Mr Vulkanovski: and Australian resources.

Mr Lawrence: and Australian resources and so forth. There is a real issue here. We have seen this come out of the revelations about the National Security Agency in the US. There has been to this point very much?we know their mantra was 'collect it all'?an approach of 'We can do this, therefore we should.' I think we need to have some pretty serious conversations?as this is a very important part of that conversation?about the limits to do that. There is a burden of proof on the intelligence agencies here, which they can very easily circumvent by saying, 'We cannot comment on intelligence agencies.'

Mr Vulkanovski: It's hard to make comment without any data.

Senator LEYONHJELM: One of the chief champions of data retention, in particular, is ASIO. What is your opinion of their enthusiasm for it?

Mr Lawrence: Being very absorbed in these issues for some time, it is certainly clear to me that this sort of mass-scale data mining and signals intelligence will never go anywhere near replacing good old-fashioned human intelligence. That is the point. If we learned anything from Edward Snowden it is that having all this information does not necessarily make anyone any safer. In many ways, it undermines?this is one of my real concerns. We cannot protect our civil liberties. In a sense, ASIO was set up to protect the civil liberties of Australians but we cannot protect those by dismantling it [ed: should read 'dismantling them']

CHAIR: Nicely put. Quoting briefly from your submission, and following along a similar line, you said:

Those acting against national security will not be affected by data retention. The ease with which data retention regimes can be evaded is grossly disproportionate to the cost and security concerns of the data retention regime.

Effectively, what you said is that it will be rolled over the general population, but those seeking to avoid it will have the expertise or tools to do so. Since you have a technical background, let us use that. How would people avoid these collection techniques? How easy is that to do?

Mr Vulkanovski: Anonymous browsers, like Tor, can be used to circumvent this data. I have some examples not with me at the moment?

Mr Lawrence: The use of encryption generally does raise the cost of surveillance quite dramatically. We are already seeing, in response to revelations about the NSA, people starting to become much more cognisant of the value of encryption. The reality is that if you have strong technical knowledge?and it is fairly clear that the more sophisticated terrorist networks and organised crime gangs do have some pretty serious technical knowledge?you can take various steps to bounce around the internet and hide your location and identity, which does not mean you could not necessarily be found in the final instance but it does make it very difficult and very time-consuming and very costly for the intelligence agencies. I think the takeaway from that is that these sorts of mass surveillance project are likely to not really address the issue of major crime, in a sense. You will catch a few people, but they are probably the people you were going to catch anyway, I would suggest.

Mr Vulkanovski: I think David Seidler, working for ACCAN, who we quoted earlier, summarised it quite well when he said the people that we are trying to catch will likely be the ones that will know how to evade them. I think that brings it home.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: But surely the security agencies would know what you have just said?that those that we are trying to catch would know how to evade them. So why do they still persist? What I am suggesting is that they obviously do think it is a useful tool.

Mr Vulkanovski: I imagine they would be aware that these devices of circumvention are out there. I would hope that they would be aware of that. But I think a data retention scheme or the loosening of access to any stored data would simply make their job easier. In doing so, we assert it is disproportionate to what we give up in terms of civil liberties. Making something too easy to access or allowing a wide variety of bodies to access it tends to shift the proportionality against our cause.

Mr Lawrence: I would add that I do not personally feel that the intelligence agencies or the Attorney-General's Department or the Federal Police have made a reasonable case as to why this information is required. The primary argument I have heard essentially is: 'Well, we've always had access to this information through the phone system. We're just extending that. It is a logical extension into these new communications technologies.' As I said in our opening statement, we strongly reject that. If you think about when this act was originally drafted, the information that you would get would be the fact that a phone call was made from No. A to No. B at a certain time and lasted a certain duration. That is four pieces of information. As soon as you widen that into a mobile phone context, all of a sudden you have got a location at each point, which is an entirely new thing, where literally people's locations can be tracked. Then, if you go beyond that into non-telephonic communications, all of a sudden the amount of information that has been collected starts to explode. You start to have potentially dozens, if not hundreds, of different points of data that can tell all sorts of things about what is going on. It is really quite a different scale, a different scope, a different context, and it needs to have very different rules.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: We might ask the ACC when we are down there later whether people can circumvent it.

Mr Lawrence: The argument that is often made?this may have been explained to earlier?is that because the business models and so on are changing, particularly within the ISP space, their requirement to store a lot of this data, which was usually just billing data, is starting to go away. This is understandable. There is a concern on the part of the agencies that it will get to the point where they will go and request data and it just will not be there, because the company had no reason to store it. That is the point at which I think you start running straight into some of the fundamental privacy principles, which is that information should not be stored unless there is a legitimate reason for it. Storing it just in case we might want to do some surveillance on you is, we would argue, beyond that line.

Mr Vulkanovski: Just in case there is a needle in the haystack.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I do not want to suffer the fate of one of my colleagues, who used television drama shows as a substitute for actual facts, but I might say that the American television cops would never solve a crime without surveillance access to phones. Even some of the British cops would seem to be at a disadvantage if it were not there. Perhaps that is not real life though. Senator Marshall, I assume you are going to ask your question?

Senator MARSHALL: I was just going to ask, as a general question, whether you have issues with warrants that might have been issued for a purpose that then identify other issues of criminal activity?whether you then have a problem with that incidental information being used and passed to other agencies that it might affect, from a civil libertarian point of view.

Mr Lawrence: That is kind of a difficult question to answer in the abstract, I think. Warrants are there and are given specific restrictions for a purpose. In that sort of circumstance?and I am not a criminal lawyer by any means?if other evidence is uncovered and there is a reason for that to require police investigation then presumably there would be a process where they could then go and get a secondary warrant and so forth. But I do not pretend to be an expert on that.

Senator MARSHALL: You are right in terms of the development of the legislation pre internet and pre mobile phone?not necessarily all mobile phones, but the electronic world anyway. You make a point which is right: there is so much more information out there, and inevitably, if you are targeting someone and you are right about that and you get the information, you may get much more information. But my understanding at the moment is that it is then very problematic to pass that information on if it was not specifically on the purpose of the warrant.

The other point is that a lot of people have used examples. You say, 'Why should everyone be treated as a criminal?' and I agree with that, but what about the example that we all walked through the security screening into this building? Do we also take the attitude that we were all being treated as potential criminals because we did that and conceded to that?

Mr Lawrence: No, I think there is a really simple answer to that: it was my choice to walk into this building today. What we are talking about here?and another example that is often used is that we all use loyalty?

Senator MARSHALL: Can I just pick up on that. You said earlier that it is too easy and not acceptable in today's world to say, 'If you want privacy, don't use the internet.' Okay, maybe it is your choice to walk into this building. It might be your choice to go through an airport. There are lots of buildings in town where there is security required, and sometimes it may not be your choice. Is it the same argument?

Mr Lawrence: Partly. I think part of that is that we have spaces now in the digital context which, whether we like it or not, are becoming public spaces. To a large extent, Facebook is kind of a privately owned public space.

Senator MARSHALL: I am told it was so yesterday, but I do not know; I was not there yesterday either.

Mr Lawrence: Tumblr, Instagram or whatever?Snapchat. But I think there are some really serious questions there about how we treat these new public spaces, potentially. But, even having said that, if I am using a private email to communicate with somebody else, I think there is an expectation of privacy there, which is not the same as walking into a building and going through a metal detector.

Senator MARSHALL: Does a lot of it come back to what people understand? Again, in the example of someone using their private email address on their employer's computer, the employer still ultimately has access to that if they want to. Is that really the mistake of the user saying, 'I should have known that this wasn't private because I don't own that', or should they have had the expectation of privacy?

Mr Lawrence: I would agree with Senator Macdonald's point earlier. If you are at work, it is not private; it is work. It is important that people do have a distinction between?

Senator MARSHALL: Not in your lunch break?

Mr Lawrence: People do have some expectation of privacy, but I always counsel people, as the good senator has said: do not write anything in your work email that you would not be prepared to defend in court or see on the front page of the Herald Sun, but?

Senator MARSHALL: What about if you use the phone during your lunchbreak? Should the employer be able to listen to that?

Mr Lawrence: It probably depends whether the employer is paying the bill or not, to some extent, but I have always counselled people to maintain a very strict distinction between their personal and private emails, for a whole range of reasons, but particularly because it is important to have that distinction. I think that is part of the point. When you are at work, your expectations of privacy are slightly different from when you are in a private context. I think that is largely as it should be.

Senator MARSHALL: Should there need to be a warrant system for non-privately owned systems? I understand there should be a warrant to go and get your personal stuff, but, if it is not your personal stuff and you have been using it, should there be a warrant at all?

Mr Vulkanovski: I think ultimately each individual needs to take some responsibility when they are online. That is a given. That has to be done. We need to exercise prudence and we need to be aware of where our information can land, who is seeing it in its immediate capacity and who can probably see it in its immediate or future capacity. In saying that, laws such as the T(IA), or any laws in particular, provide that level of?you mentioned, 'Should this person be allowed to view this?' or 'If someone is standing next to me, they inherently can hear me, so would that be an invasion of privacy?' All these things can be mimicked online, except you probably do not know that someone is over your shoulder or that the boss is there. Why we are here today and why you are here today is basically to ascertain the standards that should be put in place. That is what we are trying to determine, to put some kind of standard on and create the bridge between my personal data?possibly rather personal data?and the legal capacity to obtain this data. We all know they have the capacity to retain this data. A lot of people do. But why we are here today is to determine what that legal threshold is. Basically this is something that should be sorted out and determined, hopefully, ideally, here today.

Senator MARSHALL: That is why?

Mr Vulkanovski: That is how the process works and that is how it should be.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: This is not really germane to our terms of reference, but you did mention earlier the difficulty with the social implications. There are lots of stories about young children suffering badly from bullying and other things and thinking that Facebook and Twitter are real life. Do you think that there should be some compulsory warnings flash up on the screen every time you turn on your computer, saying: 'Please be aware, whether you are young, old or indifferent, this is not private; this could be seen by anyone'?

Mr Lawrence: I think it is important. There is a lot of really excellent work being done at the moment, particularly in the school context, educating and empowering people about what the issues are so that they understand what they are doing. There is this emerging concept of digital citizenship, which has been promoted by a lot of the agencies that are focused on protecting children in that space. In my role, I see some of the adults who slip through that net, in a sense. There is a lot of really excellent work being done in the youth space and probably not quite enough attention being paid to educate people that did not grow up with the internet. We are all aware of that. I was somewhat overjoyed the other day to see my 86-year-old father reading the newspaper on his iPad for the first time. Does he understand the privacy implications of what he is doing? Not really, but I think there is a role for us all, and, to many extents, that is at the core of EFA's mission: to educate people as to exactly what they are doing. As Alex said earlier, I think there is a great deal of personal responsibility that people need to exercise.

There are great dangers out there on the internet, as there are on Macquarie Street. But it has been our experience over two decades that the internet is an overwhelmingly positive revolution in communications. There are bad things happening there, and we need to be educated about what they are and we need to understand them so that we can tackle them effectively, both on a personal level and on a society-wide level. One of the other things that has really become clear to me over about 15 years of working in this space is that while there is a great deal of hope and the internet is an enormously enabling technology and has fantastic opportunities for education, particularly in less developed countries?if we can fix the copyright regimes, that is?it is also potentially the most powerful surveillance device ever imagined. And we need to get that balance right. I guess that is at the core of our concerns.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It amazes me that people give their credit details over electronic media so regularly. I am surprised that there are not more fraud cases than we hear about?well, I know there are more than we hear about.

Mr Lawrence: Perhaps I could put one quick question back to you on that: do you give your credit card information over the phone?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I try not to, but I have on occasion, yes.

Mr Lawrence: I would assert that it is much more secure to give it through an encrypted connection to a computer than to a person.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Probably, yes.

CHAIR: A cheerful thought. Thanks very much again to both of you. We will wrap there, but your time today has been very much appreciated. Perhaps I could get a motion to accept any tabled documents from today's proceedings, principally this stuff from iiNet. It is so moved. That concludes today's proceedings. The committee has agreed that answers to questions taken on notice at today's hearing, I think mainly from the first witness, will be returned by 12 August?two weeks from today. I thank all witnesses who have given evidence to the committee today.

Related Posts:

THE VOID, Vol. 3: How American Icon Records Is Saving the Austin Underground
Or: The epic quest behind Jon Hadusek's friendship with Jonathon "Jonny" Galyon.



3 months ago
Middle East Unrest Leads To Cancelled Shows

image from www.celebrityaccess.comOrganizers have scrapped a pair of concerts set to take place in Israel in the wake of the violence conflict between Israelis and Palestinians taking place in the Gaza Strip. According to The Hollywood Reporter, scheduled shows by both Cee Lo Green and metal band Megadeth have been canceled. Megadeth was set to perform on August 6 at the convention center in Tel Avivi while Cee Lo was slated for August 19th in in Independence Park in Jerusalem.

Megadeth announced on their website that their show was canceled €œDue to an inability to confirm the guaranteed passage of the band and their gear into Tel Aviv in time for the show."

A statement from the promoter for Cee Lo's gig said that the current state of Israel, combined with a mandate that limits gatherings to just 1,000 people was the underlying cause of the stymied show. - Staff Writers

Marcus Intalex helms New York's Natural Selection
Drum & bass icon and Soul:r stable boss Marcus Intalex will make two rare New York City appearances this weekend on Saturday, August 9th and the following weekend as well on Saturday, August 16th. Influential UK-based DJ producer Marcus Kaye, known in recent years for crafting house and techno under his popular Trevino moniker, brings his classic, experimental drum & bass sound to Tammany Hall on Saturday, August 9th for the ongoing Natural Selection event, backed by Double Dragon and residents. Then, the following week, Natural Selection will also host the Metalheadz NYC party on Saturday, August 16th featuring labelmates Doc Scott and Bailey.

Trans Am - Volume X

Trans Am have always been a beautiful enigma of a band. The sort of band that feel like a great big secret when you first discover them, and for good reason €“ they seem criminally unknown. Until fairly recently they were not even on Spotify, making sharing the joy of their existence pleasingly difficult.

Volume X is their appropriately-titled tenth album and, although the press release talks about the title reflecting the physical volume of the music and the band's willingness to embody the mysterious and unknown, it also seems to suggest some kind of retrospective of their twenty-five year career. And, indeed, long-term fans will recognise classic Trans Am elements throughout the album. 'Night Shift' has the neon futuristic sound of Futureworld, 'Re-evaluations' has the tongue-in-cheek 80s homage of TA (an album hated by everyone except me, it seems), 'Ice Fortress', meanwhile, recalls the clean, melodic sounds of Sex Change, and both 'K Street' and powerful album-closer 'Insufficiently Breathless' suggest the experimental streak that marked 2000's acclaimed double album Red Line.

But the funny thing about Trans Am is that their 'typical' sound involves experimenting with all kinds of different sounds, often within the same song. So while Volume X in some respects feels like a nostalgic tour through albums past, such a tour could never be a simple rehashing of an earlier sound, thanks to the band's relentless desire to push their sound ever farther. Trans Am have always been about keeping the classics elements of their sound €“ dirty synths, vocoded vocals, guitars that flirt with the conventions of classic rock €“ while pushing them into exciting new genre experiments.

'Backlash' is an unexpected blast of full-on thrash, complete with ridiculous guitar solo. It's like early Metallica if they somehow discovered analogue synths. On the complete other end of the spectrum is surprising album highlight 'I'll Never', which is a full-on, plaintive electro-ballad that is reminiscent of Suicide's 'Cheree'. Over an echoey Phil Spector drum beat and mournful synths Nathan Means intones €œIt's true, I'll never get over you€ in a moment of self-reflection somewhat unknown in Trans Am lyrics. The fact that he does it while heavily vocoded and that it really works shows just how versatile a band Trans Am can be.

Leaving aside the songwriting, one other thing worth mentioning about the album is just how great it sounds. There aren't many bands who can get so many varied sounds and emotions out of their instruments and especially their synthesizers. Special mention must also go to Sebastian Thompson, surely one of rock music's most underrated drummers. His beats have always been possibly the most integral part of what makes Trans Am's take on electronic rock so special. Fresh from moonlighting with Baroness Thompson once again provides the backbone of the band, if you'll excuse the cliché. For example, the hidden menace lurking behind the dirty synth riffs of 'Anthropocene' are given extra vigour by his pounding, skittering fills, and all over the album he proves his worth, providing some of his most interesting work when the drums are heavily processed.

The only real potential downside to the album is that sometimes the songwriting feels a little flat. This was a problem that album no. 9, Thing, also suffered from to some degree. One can admire the shifting, beautiful instrumental experiments and the weird vocals for a little while but sometimes you just want the songs to pop a little more. The band sound oddly restrained at times; when it works, as on 'Anthropocene', it can add an air of swaggering, barely-concealed danger, but over the course of an album you might want Trans Am to focus a little less on the soundscapes and to focus a little more on rocking out, as they have before.

But, to look at it from a different angle, such feelings seem to point towards an album that improves and grows on subsequent listens and Volume X certainly appears to have more than enough subtle moments and hidden delights to ensure its longevity. Trans Am are a band who, in a quarter century together, have never shown any sign that they're happy to keep ploughing the same furrow. To complain about them not repeating they what did before seems downright churlish. May they continue doing their own thing for years to come.


Watch: Azealia Banks’ video for “Heavy Metal and Reflective”
We hope you like motorcross.


FKA Twigs - LP1

Pummelled continuously round the head by 24-hour news. Obliged to watch an entire DVD boxset per night so as not to get left behind as a cultural dinosaur. Plans for a costly high-speed rail network just to make the journey from one bustling metropolis to a similarly overcrowded conurbation thirty minutes quicker. Software update notifications every time you plug in your damned toaster. A Facebook feed bombarded by the constantly ageing faces of your friends€™ infants. The We Buy Any Car jingle playing on an involuntary four-hour loop inside your crackling brain. Ray Winstone€™s disembodied noggin interrupting all sports coverage every thirteen seconds to bellow the words, €œCome on geezer, put a fackin€™ monkey on the €˜orses, you soft bleedin€™ muppet!€ Contracting the inability to concentrate on any arts criticism that dares to be longer than 140 characters. Too busy working, networking, scrolling, sharing and clicking to have the time or energy to even skim through a fluffy airport novel, let alone make it past footnote no. 24 of Infinite Jest.

Let€™s slow the f=== down everybody. And listen to FKA Twigs.

Traditionally, the sound of youthful dissent has often been tied to pedal-to-the-metal acceleration, be it punk rock, thrash metal, grindcore, drum and bass, happy hardcore, or The Cuban Boys€™ yodelling hamster song. Well that stuff€™s old hat now and with the world rattling forwards at twice the pace of Technohead€™s €˜I Wanna Be A Hippy€™, the only real way to rebel in 2014 is to slow down, man, s-l-ow d-ow-n.

As Sean €œMr DiS€ Adams tweeted to his bazillion followers after seeing her live for the first time, Tahliah Barnett aka FKA Twigs is a €œdrone€˜n€™b, Aaliyah in a slo-mo daydream€. The comparisons to the blue-mood soul sound of Aaliyah are apt. Barnett€™s extraordinary voice also evokes the melancholic queens of trip-hop Martina Topley-Bird and Beth Gibbons, and Massive Attack collaborators such as Sinead O€™Connor and Elizabeth Fraser (not to mention various others from the 4AD roster).

Anyone who€™s already heard the single €˜Two Weeks€™ will testify to the truly astounding nature of Barnett€™s vocals. The track is an astonishing display of power and restraint. If those desperate X-Factor wannabes are kids running amok in an unguarded fireworks warehouse, letting off bangers left, right and centre and accidentally burning their faces off with their own unfixed Catherine wheel lungs €˜cos they think that€™s what Mariah Carey does, Barnett is an expert pyrotechnic with a remarkable control over her rockets, knowing exactly when to explode and how long to hold back for pace and suspense with little more than a sparkling whisper. With extra swearing. And slower.

Kylie Minogue€™s instructions to €œslow down and dance with me, yeah, slow€ come to mind, yet despite rocking mounds of rich, deep, funky, booming grooves, LP1€™s music is too slow to dance to really. Try slo-mo boogying to this and you€™ll risk looking like an aqua aerobics class that lost its swimming pool. Its disorientating, unsettling and claustrophobic ambience would be better suited to soundtracking a Netflix reboot of Nineties yuppie drama This Life. But don€™t let that put you off. It may be slow but Twigs€™ music is constantly swerving, shifting and splicing. While its glitchy beats, swathes of bass and woozy synths may soothe, they never bore. Its production is slick, professional and precise, but fortunately LP1 remains too out-there to put on at a dreaded dinner party (unless, perhaps, it€™s one of those mythically kinky dinner parties where you all put your car keys in a bowl and then make ((excruciatingly slow)) love to someone else€™s hubby). €œSlow love / So much better when we take it easy / Slow love / So much better when we take our time,€ as Prince once sang.

Pleasingly, FKA Twigs makes sex sound as awkward and nerve-racking as it€™s always been here in post-Victorian England where we might get Prince but we never really get Prince. Twigs€™ music is undeniably sexy, but in a somewhat distracted, apprehensive and paranoid way that flirts with being more frightening/frightened than sensual. It€™s like trying to calmly enjoy a snog on the steady ascent of a rollercoaster, or being seduced by someone who you slightly suspect may in fact be a phantom. Perhaps Barnett is a phantom. Or an alien, like Prince. Or an imaginary mutant r€˜n€™b superstar who€™s escaped from the radiator inside one of David Lynch€™s transcendental nightmares.

When Twigs sings about touching herself on €˜Kicks€™, she doesn€™t sound cringingly exhibitionist like Lady Gaga or Madonna before her, she sounds wounded and alone (€œI love my touch, know just what to do, so I tell myself it€™s cool to get my kicks like you€), yet still strong and defiant (€œI just touch myself and say, I€™ll make my own damn way€). Like other aching tracks such as €˜Numbers€™ (€œWas I just a number to you?€), €˜Kicks€™ could be a retort sung by one the many girls who€™ve been dicked over by the sexual shenanigans of The Weeknd.

In actual fact, some of FKA Twigs€™ ostensibly sexy-time lyrics are deeper than they initially appear. Barnett has explained that €˜Lights On€™ (€œWhen I trust you we can do it with the lights on€) is more concerned with personality than physical matters; it€™s about being comfortable enough with somebody to reveal who you really are. And it turns out that €˜Video Girl€™, which on first listen might come across as some seedy virtual sex narrative, actually documents the far grubbier experience of Twigs€™ former employment as a backing dancer in the video for Jessie J€™s €˜Price Tag€™ (the horror! the horror!).

Confidently frail and hesitant, LP1 is a refreshing reaction to, and a calm assault upon, the unfathomably fast-paced total noise of the current age. It projects modern anxieties, vents them, and forms a big warm blanket to protect and medicate you from them too. So maybe you should surrender to Ray Winstone€™s bloating, floating, gambling-promoting mug after all and have a flutter on LP1 winning the Mercury. Don€™t let that put you off either. This is no Well-Done Our Kid by Guy Garvey and The Elbows or James Blake€™s Overblown. This one deserves it.


Listen: Opeth’s new song “Eternal Rains”
A stirring ballad from the forthcoming Pale Communion LP.


Listen: Nick Oliveri’s new song “Human Cannonball Explodes”
First single from former QOTSA bassist's latest solo record, Leave Me Alone.


Top 10 Songs of the Week (8/1)
Wilco's Jeff Tweedy, Gaslight Anthem, and Iceage all earned spots. But who's No. 1?


Log in to see more.